\ 


^  'N 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  belo 

JUN  E  0  19^3 
FEB  3      ^96^ 


•  ?/'  -i. 


APR  i  !>  192( 
MAY  3      1926 

.  KIAY  2  0  IBWt 


SEP  Z  0  1S43 


JUL  2  9  1960 


HARSO  1964 


BEC'D  r-'D 


AUG 


'fV 


ID. 
IIRL 


)k 


ftPRl  81949 

Form  L-9-15m-10,"25 


^^^'^ 


IbbB 


/      «  "..• 


A    HISTORY   OF   SCOTLAND 


'  /ry!*yTn*^^^>tr,  fM^^a.tnM  .y^jitn/itfu--  /^■lav/.O'm^,  0>^^.  ,Y'Ojj.^A>m/ 


A  HISTORY  OF   SCOTLAND 


FROM 


THE    ROMAN    OCCUPATION 


BY 


ANDREW     LANG 


IN   FOUR  VOLUMES 
VOL.    IV. 


WITH    A    FRONTISPIECE 
AND    INDEX    TO    COMPLETE    WORK 


•    -»        u  J*J.         '      *      »       \      i  ^     *     i        i    i 


>  1  >     ■  ,  > 


>  .1  )  )         9 

J  J  '      '      /  J.J 


,  ,  •  -•  -  ■        O       >  *»        ,        J       J      'j  ,     ,    )       ,     °»      J  5       ,      -".I       "»"'      J  . 

WILLIAM    BLACKWOOD    AND    SONS 

EDINBURGH     AND     LONDON 

MCMVII 


All  Rights  reserz'ed 


•  t  » 


•      •    * «   • 


•  •  •  ••     • 


•-   •     • 


T  (^  o 


PREFACE. 


With  this  volume  ends  my  '  History  of  Scotland/  closing 
when  the  last  armed  attempt  to  make  Scotland  once  more 
an  independent  and  separate  nation  was  broken  at  Culloden. 
The  fortunes  of  the  country  after  that  disaster  must  be  left 
to  the  energy  of  some  other  hand. 

The  book  is  a  "  general  history  "  of  the  events  of  seventeen 
centuries,  and  I  cannot  suppose  that  it  does  not  contain 
errors  to  be  joyously  detected  by  specialists  in  various  fields 
of  research.  I  have  never  seen  a  History  which  was 
impeccable,  and  though  I  have  throughout  distrusted  tradi- 
tion, and  endeavoured  to  discover  the  most  original  and 
authentic  sources  of  information,  it  is  not  to  be  dreamed 
that  my  researches  have  been  exhaustive. 

Sir  Walter  Scott  gave  his  assent  to  the  saying  that,  "If 
the  Scots  do  not  prefer  Scotland  to  truth,  they  certainly 
prefer  Scotland  to  inquiry."  Human  nature  prefers  the 
good  old  story  learned  at  school,  or  from  tradition,  to 
inquiry,  with  new  results.  Yet  it  is  not  the  province  of 
History  to  "preserve  our  illusions."  I  humbly  venture  to 
think  that,  even  in  histories  for  schools,  it  would  be  wise 
to  let  the  pupils  understand  something  about  the  nature 
and  sources  and  relative  credibility  of  historical  evidence. 
Even  in  some  passages  of  this  volume  it  may  be  found 
that  Memoirs  written  by  their  authors,  mainly  from  memory, 
long  after  the  events  narrated,  and  that  oral  traditions,  late 
and  destitute  of  quoted   authority,  have  been  preferred  by 


VI  PREFACE. 

our  historians  to  accessible  contemporary  despatches  and 
other  written  records.  I  hope  that  the  character  of  the 
last  Stuart  Prince  of  Wales  born  in  England  is  here  drawn 
with  a  measure  of  truth  which  has  hitherto  been  with- 
held—  partly  from  prejudice,  partly  from  lack  of  many 
documents  now  accessible. 

The  Scottish  History  Society,  meanwhile,  has  done  much 
admirable  work  in  publishing  valuable  manuscripts,  and  my 
thanks  are  due  to  Mr  Blaikie,  Mr  Fitzroy  Bell,  and  others 
for  the  '  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,'  the  '  Memorials  of 
Murray  of  Broughton,'  and  Bishop  Forbes's  '  Lyon  in  Mourn- 
ing,' while  Sir  Hubert  Jerningham,  K.C.M.G.,  kindly  lent 
me  his  original  manuscript  of  Captain  Daniel's  account  of 
his  adventures  in  1745-46.  I  owe  much  to  Dr  Mackinnon's 
'  History  of  the  Union  between  England  and  Scotland,' 
and  to  Mr  Scott  of  St  Andrews  University  for  permission 
to  read  in  MS.  some  Scottish  chapters  of  his  valuable 
work  on  commerce.  Other  debts  are  acknowledged  in  the 
proper  places ;  but  I  have  particularly  to  thank  M:ss 
Josephine  MacDonell  of  Keppoch  for  her  assistance  in 
elucidating  certain  episodes  in  the  battle  of  Culloden,  and 
the  Rev.  John  Anderson  of  the  General  Register  House 
for  his  discovery  of  new  and  important  evidence. 

To  Anthony  Maxtone-Graham,  Esq.  of  Cultoquhey,  I  must 
express  my  grateful  thanks  for  permission  to  produce  his 
portrait  of  James  VHI.  and  HI.,  "the  Old  Pretender." 
Even  the  Old  Pretender  was  once  young  and  of  a  goodly 
presence. 

It  would  be  ungrateful,  indeed,  not  to  record  my  obliga- 
tions to  Miss  E.  M.  Thompson  for  her  transcripts  from  MSS. 
in  the  Record  Office  and  British  Museum  ;  to  Mr  Murray, 
M.A.,  St  Andrews,  for  his  aid  in  correcting  proof-sheets  and 
references  ;  and  to  Messrs  Maitland  Anderson  and  Smith 
of  the  University  Library,  St  Andrews,  for  their  unfailing 
kindness. 

If    there    is    a    portion    of    this    work    which    the    author 


PREFACE.  VU 

would  more  gladly  rewrite  than  another,  it  is  the  part 
which  deals  with  the  Reformation.  Here  tradition  has 
been  little  checked  in  her  vagaries.  For  example,  my  own 
account  of  the  last  days  of  James  V.  (i.  455)  omits  the 
fact,  which  I  have  since  ascertained  from  the  MS.  Liber 
Emptoriim,  that  James  passed  nearly  a  week  of  his  last 
fortnight  at  Linlithgow,  where  his  wife  was  expecting  her 
confinement.  He  did  not  desert  her  till  his  fatal  illness 
began.  I  have  also  found  (see  i.  459-468)  that  Arran, 
while  he  was  accusing  Cardinal  Beaton  of  falsehood,  as, 
later,  of  forgery,  was  deposing  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow 
from  the  Chancellorship,  and  giving  the  keys  to  Beaton. 
The  evidence  is  in  the  MS.  Register  of  the  Privy  Seal. 
Again  (ii.  64),  I  have  left  it  an  open  question  as  to 
whether  Arran  (Chatelherault)  did  or  did  not  write  a 
letter  in  which  he  submitted  to  Francis  and  Mary.  But 
later  researches  in  French  Foreign  Office  archives  and 
other  sources  leave  me  in  little  or  no  doubt  that  the  letter 
(January  25,  1560)  was  a  forgery  procured  by  Mary  of 
Guise  (see  my  'John  Knox  and  the  Reformation,'  pp,  280, 
281.     Longmans:   1905). 

Again  (ii.  59  and  note  63),  I  was  misled  as  to  the  con- 
tents of  Kirkcaldy's  letter  (July  24,  1560)  about  the  terms 
of  the  Treaty  of  Leith  by  Mr  Joseph  Bain's  Calendar.  The 
facts  will  be  found  in  'John  Knox  and  the  Reformation' 
(pp.  140-150).  Calendars  are  useful  for  reference,  but  are 
not  otherwise  to  be  implicitly  accepted  without  reference 
to  the  original  documents.  It  is  my  hope,  if  ever  I  have 
the  opportunity,  to  correct  the  whole  work  in  the  light  of 
such  criticisms  as  commend  themselves  by  their  justice 
and  accuracy. 

As  is  usual,  new  information  comes  in  too  late  for  the 
author's  purpose.  Thus,  for  the  history  of  1745-46,  Kirsch's 
materials  from  the  Vatican  Archives  have  reached  me  too 
late.  {Historisches  Jahrbuch,  XX VH.  ii.,  iii.  Miinchen  : 
1906.) 


CONTENTS   OF   THE   FOURTH   VOLUME. 


CHAPTER    I. 


PARLIAMENTARY   AFFAIRS. 
OF    DUNDEE 


PAGE 

The  opposition 

2 

Opposition  to  "  the  Articles  "  . 

3 

Compromise  rejected 

4 

The  Dalrymples  attacked 

S 

Movements  of  Dundee     . 

6 

Mackay  and  Dundee 

7 

Keppoch  at  Inverness 

8 

Dundee  in  Lochaber 

9 

Narrow  escape  of  Mackay 

lO 

Stout  conduct  of  the  Macleans 

II 

Advice  of  Lochiel    . 

12 

Quarrel  with  Glengarry  . 

13 

VICTORY    AND    DEATH 

:.     1689. 

I' AGE 

The  race  for  Blair  Atholl 

14 

Dundee  and  Lord  Murray 

IS 

Killiecrankie  Pass   . 

16 

Question  of  the  battlefield 

17 

Disposition  of  the  forces  . 

18 

The  Highland  charge 

19 

Death  of  Dundee     . 

20 

The  great  Dundee  . 

21 

Mackay  and  Cannon 

22 

Cameronian  victory  at  Dunkeld 

23 

Dunkeld 

24 

CHAPTER    n. 


PARLIAMENTARY   AND    ECCLESIASTICAL    SETTLEMENT. 
MASSACRE   OF   GLENCOE.        1689. 


Intrigues  of  the  Club  (1690)     .        .  27 

Intrigues  of  Annandale  (1690)  .  28 

Polwarth  deserts  the  Club  (1690)     .  29 

Lords  of  Articles  abolished  (1690)  .  30 
The   Club  betray  Jacobite   secrets 

(1690) 31 

The   Kirk   reorganised  —  torture  of 

Payne  (1690)         ....  32 

A  quiet  General  Assembly  (1690)     .  33 

Cameronians  and  Assembly  (169c) .  34 

Kirk  and  Cameronians  {1690)  .  35 

'1  he  Highlanders  (1690-91)      .         .  36 

Breadalbane  and  the  clans  (1691)    .  37 

"  Rooting  out  the  clans  "  (1691)       .  38 


Dalrymple's  plans  (1691) 

Glencoe  comes  in  too  late  (1692) 

Description  of  Glencoe    . 

Submission  of  Glencoe  (1692) 

Maclans  to  be  "extirpated"  (1692) 

The  eve  of  massacre 

The  massacre  (1692) 

The  adventure  of  the  Bass  (1691-94) 

The  heroes  of  the  Bass    . 

A   troublesome    General   Assembly 

(1692-93)       .... 
Church  troubles  (1693)    . 
Triumph  of  the  Assembly  (1694) 


39 
40 

41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

47 

48 
49 
50 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    III. 


THE   EAST    INDIA    COMPANY.       THE   DARIEN    DISASTER. 

1693-1702. 


Parliament  and  Glencoe  (1695) 
Favour  and  dismissal  of  Stair  (1695) 
Heresy  and  blasphemy  (1695-96) 
Hanging  a  heretic  (1697) 
Attempts  to  revive  commerce  (1604 

1695)    

East  India  Company  (1695)     . 
William  Paterson    . 
Passing  of  the  Act  (1695) 
William  "surprised"  (1695)    . 
Privileges  of  the  Company  (1695) 
Interference  of  English  Parliament 

(1695-96)      .... 
The  Darien  secrets . 


54 
55 
56 
57 

58 

59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

64 
65 


English  desire  to  steal  Paterson's 

site  (1697)     .... 
Early  colonial  days  (1698) 
Encounter  with  Spain  (1699)  . 
Scottish  prisoners  of  Spain  (1699) 
The  colony  deserted  (1699) 
The  new  expedition  (1699) 
The  colony  surrenders  (1700)  . 
Simon  of  Lovat 
Scottish  indignation  (1700) 
Parliament  (1700-1701)    , 
William  desires  union  (1700)  . 
Death  of  William  (1702) . 


66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

n 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE    EVE   OF   UNION,   1702-1705. 


Commission  of  Union  (1702)  . 
A  new  Parliament  demanded  (1702) 
Changes  in  administration  (1702)    . 
Commissioners  of  Union  meet  (1702) 
Development  of  Scots  Parliaments 

(1427-1703)  .... 
Parliamentary  evolution  . 
Statesmen  of  1703    . 
The  parties  (1703)    . 
Court,  Cavalier,  and  Country  par 

ties  (1703)     .... 
Act  of  Peace  and  War  (1703)  . 
Scots  Act  of  Security  (1703)     . 
Merits  and  defects  of  the  Courtiers 
I^vat  and  Queensberry  . 
Exploits  of  Simon  Eraser 
Treachery  of  Simon  (1703-1704) 


81 
82 
83 
84 

85 
86 

87 
88 

89 
90 

91 
92 

93 
94 
95 


"  The  Queensberry  Plot "  (1704) 
Queensberry  loses  office  (1704) 
Parliament  of  1704  . 
Succession  —  limitations    of    royal 

power  (1704) 
Act  ofSecurity— English  retort  (1704) 
Pressure  on  Scotland  (1704)    . 
The  affair  of  Captain  Green  (1704 

1705)    

Green  condemned  to  death  (1705 

Green  hanged  —  mystery  of  The 
Speedy  Return 

Parliament — Argyll  and  the  Squad- 
rone  (1705)  .... 

Cavaliers    restricting    royal    pow 

(«705) 

Union  by  two  votes  (1705) 


96 

97 
98 

99 
100 

lOI 


103 
104 

105 

106 
107 


CHAPTER    V. 


THE    UNION,    1705-1707. 


The  Commissioners  (1706) 
"  Federalism  a  chimera"  (1706) 
Meetings  of  Commissioners  (1706) 
Taxation  and  the  e(|uivalent    . 
Things  exempt  from  taxes 


no 

111 

112 

•    113 

.    114 

Law  and  judicature          .         .         .  115 
Scottish    Parliamentary  representa- 
tion        116 

The  twenty-five  Articles  (July  1706)  117 

Jacobite  intrigues  (1705-1706) .         .  118 


CONTENTS. 


XI 


Resistance  to  Union  (1706) 
De  Foe's  descriptions  (1706) 
Belhaven's  rhetoric  . 
Attitude  of  the  Kirk 
Chances  of  a  rising  (1706) 
Attitude  of  the  Cameronians 
The  Cameronians    .         . 
Cunningham's  intrigues  {1706) 
Kersland  and  De  Foe  (1707)  . 


119  1    "  Pierce  "  and  Kersland  . 

120  '    Cunningham  and  Hepburn  (1706) 

121  Success  of  Kersland  (1706) 

122  !    Hamilton  deserts  the  party  of  vio 

123  [       lence  (1706) 

124  Hamilton  breaks  another  plan  (1707) 

125  Hamilton  a  third  time  deserts  ( 1707) 

126  "The  end  of  an  auld  sang"  (1707) 

127  I   Charges  of  bribery  (171 1) 


128 
129 
•30 

131 
132 

133 

134 
135 


CHAPTER    VI. 


JACOBITE    MOVEMENTS,   1707-1708. 


Colonel  Hooke's  mission  (1707) 
Quarrels  as  to  trade  (1707) 
The  equivalent's  welcome  (1707) 
Friction  {1707) 

Kersland  and  the  Jacobites  (1707) 
The  Jacobites  backward  (1707) 
Hooke  and  the  Jacobites  (1707) 


138 

139 
140 
141 
142 

143 
144 


Falsehoods  of  Kersland  (1707) 
Ogilvie  the  spy  ( 1707) 
Designs  of  France  (1707) 
Forbin's  failure  (1708) 
Jacobite  fiasco  (1708) 
End  of  Kersland 


14s 
146 

147 
148 
149 

i=;o 


CHAPTER    VII. 


JACOBITES    AND    WILD   WHIGS,   1708-1714. 


Law    of  Treason    modified    (1708 

1709)    

Taxation  and  tolerance   . 

The  case  of  Greenshields  (171 1) 

Complaints  of  the  Kirk  (1710-1711 

Toleration  and  abjuration  {1714) 

The  question  of  patronage 

History  of  patronage  (1560-1592) 

History  of  patronage  (1592-1712) 

Mr  MacMillan's  career    . 

Career  of  Mr  MacMillan 

The  day  of  Auchensaugh  (1712) 


152 

153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 


Repeal  debated  .  .  .  .163 
Argyll  in  favour  of  repeal  .  .164 
The  Ministry  and  the  Restoration 

(1713-1714) 165 

Mysterious  plans  of  Hamilton  (1712)  166 
Hamilton's  fatal  duel  (1712)  .  .  167 
James's  honour — Bolingbroke's  in- 
trigues (1714)  ....  168 
Virtues  and  defects  of  James  .  .  169 
A  price  set  on  James's  head  (1714)  .  170 
Death  of  Anne — accession  of  George 
I-  (1714) 171 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


THE   JACOBITE    RISING,   1714-1715. 


Jacobite  preparations  (1714-1715) 
James    and   the   Duke   of  Berwick 

(1704-1715)  .... 
The  fatal  blunders  (1715) 
Cross  news  (1715)    . 
James  countermands  his  message 
"  Queen  Oglethorpe  " 
Flight  of  Ormonde  (1715) 


•    174 

James,  Bolingbroke,  and  Mar 

181 

k 

Mar  raises  the  standard  (17 15) 

182 

•     175 

Preparations  of  Government    . 

183 

.     176 

Measures  of  Government 

184 

•     177 

Mar  dilatory    .... 

185 

.     178 

Character  of  James 

186 

•     179 

Treachery  of  a  Maclean  . 

187 

.     180 

Stair's  attempt  on  James 

188 

Xll 

Indolence  of  Mar    . 

Narrative  of  the  Master  of  Sinclair 

Mar's  negligence  at  Perth 

Feats  of  the  Macgregors 

Loch  Lomond  expedition 

The  Master's  raid   . 


CONTENTS. 

189 

Kenmure  and  Forster's  risings 

•     195 

190 

Mar's  position 

.     196 

191 

Mackintosh  crosses  the  Firth  . 

•     197 

192 

Argyll  saves  Edinburgh  . 

.     198 

193 

A  feint  on  Stirling  . 

•     199 

194 

Mar  advances  and  retires 

.     200 

CHAPTER    IX. 


THE    END    OF    THE    RISING    OF    1715. 


Dissensions  of  the  Border  Jacobites  205 
The  Border  Jacobites  enter  England  206 
Jacobites  at  Preston — Wills  advanc- 
ing       ......  207 

Mackintosh  uses  Preston  as  a  for- 
tress       208 

Street-fighting  at  Preston  .  .  209 
The  Jacobites  captured  .  .  .210 
Jacobite  quarrels  at  Perth        .         .211 

Delays  of  Mar          ....  212 

Simon  of  Lovat  reappears        .         .  213 

Adventures  of  Lovat        .         .         .  214 

Lovat  takes  Inverness     .         .         .  215 

Sheriffmuir      .....  216 


Victory  of  Jacobite  right  wing         .  217 

Defeat  of  Jacobite  left  wing     .         .  218 

A  powderless  army .         .         .         .  219 

The  Grumblers'  Club       .         .         .  220 

"  That  hell "  of  confusion        .         .  221 

The  king  lands         ....  222 

The  king's  journey  .         .         .         .  223 

The  king's  view  of  affairs        .         .  224 

Mar  "captures "  James  (1716)         .  225 

Melancholy  of  James       .         .         .  226 
Cadogan    sent    to    hasten   Argyll's 

movements 227 

The  burning  of  villages   .         .         .  228 

Flight  of  James  and  Mar         .        .  229 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE   SEQUELAE    OF   THE    RISING,   1716-1717. 


Charges  against  Argyll    . 

James  discharges  Bolingbroke 

James  influenced  by  Atterbury 

Bolingbroke's  defence 

Reply  to  Bolingbroke 

Virtues  of  James 

The  hangman  at  work     . 

Trial  of  the  Jacobite  Lords 

Duncan  Forbes  in  favour  of  mercy 

Letter  ascribed  to  Forbes 

All  Scotland  irritated 


232 

233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 

239 
240 
241 
242 


Wodrow  on  the  rising     . 

Clanranald  on  the  situation     . 

Strange  adventures  at  Avignon 

Letter  from  an  assassin    . 

An  unsolved  puzzle 

Webb  of  Wynendael  a  Jacobite 

Oxford  a  Jacobite    . 

Escape  of  Oxford  (1717) . 

Illness  of  James 

James  driven  across  the  Alps  . 


243 
244 

245 
246 
248 
249 
250 

251 
252 

253 


CHAPTER    XI. 


FOREIGN    AFFAIRS.       THE   STORV    OF   CLEMENTINA. 
I  7  l6- 1  719. 


Generous  nature  of  James 
Dr  Erskine       .... 
James  and  Sweden  (17 17) 
Mar,  Lockhart,  and  Argyll 
Death  of  Mary  of  Modena  (1717) 


256 
257 
258 

259 
260 


Wogan  and  Clementina  (1718) 
•Spain  and  the  Cause 
Death  of  Charles  XII.      . 
The  Regent's  discoveries  (1719) 
The  king  goes  to  Spain  (1719) 


261 
262 
263 
264 
265 


The  new  Armada  (1719) 
Expedition  to  Scotland  (1719) 
The  Armada  ruined  {1719) 
Jealousies  of  Mar  (1719)  . 
TuUibardine  and  Marischal 
Before  Glenshiel 
Battle  of  Glenshiel  (1719) 


CON  r i:\TS. 

XUl 

^ 

.    266 

Success  of  Charles  Wogan 

•   273 

.    267 

Wogan  and  James  Sobieski     . 

•     ^74 

.    268 

Wogan's  wild  geese 

•     =75 

.   269 

A  great  adventure   . 

.     276 

.    270 

Escape  of  Clementina  (1719)   . 

•     277 

.    271 

A  melancholy  honeymoon 

.     278 

.    272 

CHAPTER  XII. 


HERESY    AND    SCHISM,   1720-T740. 


The  Bourignon  heresy     .        .        .  282 

The  heretical  Simson  (1717)    .         .  283 

The  Auchterarder  Creed  .         .  284 

The  Marrow  controversy  (1718)       .  285 

General  Assembly  (1720)  .         .  286 

The  Marrow  men  protest         .         .  287 

"  Neonomianism"  .         .         .         .  288 

Salvation  versus  decent  behaviour  .  289 

Chicane  about  abjuration         .         .  290 

Patronage        .....  292 

Moderates  and  Marrow  men  .         .  293 

Mr  Ralph  Erskine  ....  294 

Mr  Simson  again  (1726)  .         .         .  295 

The  Squadrone  in  theology     .         .  296 


Simson  suspended  (1728)         .         .  297 

Ebenezer  Erskine  protests  (1732)     .  298 

Rebuked  and  protests  (1732)  .         .  299 

Secession  .....  300 

"Associated  Presbytery "  (1733)      .  301 

The  power  of  the  Keys   .         .         .  302 

Erskine  and  Achilles        .         .         .  303 

Compromise  rejected        .         .  .  304 

Seceders  revive  the  Covenants         .  305 

Covenant  "M<r  term  of  communion  '  306 

A  backward  glance  (1638-1744)        .  307 

Wodrow  versus  "enthusiasm  "  (1709)  308 
The  "Moderates"  .         .         .         .309 


CHAPTER    XIII. 


THE   SECESSION.       PATRONAGE.       WITCHCRAFT.       1736-1809. 


Lovat    and     ecclesiastical     politics 

(1736) 313 

Cantrips  of  witches.         .         .         .  314 

Torture  and  murder  of  women  (1705)  315 

The  Seceders  and  Whitefield  (1741)  316 

"  Revivals"  in  Scotland  (1742)  .  317 
The    Cameronians    call   Whitefield 

"a  boar" 318 


Quarrel   about    the    Burgess   Oath 
(1746,  1747)  .         .         .         . 

The  Erskines  handed  over  to  Satan 

The  Erskine  family  divided 

Doctrinal  troubles   . 

Dr  M'Crie  excommunicated  (1806 
1809)    

Carlylean  sentiment  in  history 


319 
320 
321 
322 


323 
324 


CHAPTER    XIV. 


THE   JACOBITE    CHURCHMEN   AND   STATESMEN,   1704-1735. 

Church    rent     by 


Scottish  Episcopal  non -jurors. 
James  and  the  bishops  (1720-1722) 
"  The  Usages"  in  ritual 
Lockhart  and  the  bishops  (1722) 
James  advises  forbearance  in  love 


327 
328 

329 
330 
331 


The    Episcopal 

factions  .....  332 
Ritualists  and  anti-ritualists  (1725) .  333 
Bishops  "serving   the  Covenanted 

cause"  (1726)       ....     334 


XIV 

Lockhart  is  betrayed  (1727)     . 
Mar   accused    of   treachery    (1722 

1724)    

Atterbury's  plot  and  Mar  {1722) 
Layer's  plot  discovered  (1722) 
Atterbury's  letters  and  Mar's  reply 

(1722)  

Mar's  behaviour  to  Atterbury  (1722) 
Was  Mar  foolish  or  treacherous? 
Mar's  imbecile  scheme  (1723) . 
James  obliged  to  discard  Mar 
"So  base  a  thing  !" 
Attempted  defence  of  Mar 
James  misrepresented  by  historians 
James  pacifies  a  clan  feud  (1724) 
The  temper  of  Clementina  (1722- 

1726) 


CONTENTS. 

•     335 

The  prince's  governors    . 

349 

Grievances  of  Clementina  (1725) 

350 

.     336 

Clementina    leaves    James    (1725 

•     337 

1726) 

351 

•     338 

James's  remonstrance  (1725)    . 

352 

Clementina's  headaches  (1726) 

353 

•     339 

Lockhart  discovered  (1727) 

354 

)    340 

Lockhart  exiled  (1727)     . 

355 

•     341 

Argyll  and  the  Squadrone  (1721) 

356 

•     342 

The  Malt  Tax  (1724) 

357 

•     343 

Compromise  attempted  . 

358 

•     344 

Wade  in  Scotland  (1725) 

359 

•     345 

Glasgow  malt  riots  (1725) 

360 

'      346 

Action  of  Forbes 

361 

•     347 

The  brewers  yield   .         .         .         . 

362 

•     348 

Lord  George  Murray  converted 

363 

CHAPTER    XV. 


LIFE   IN    THE    HIGHLANDS,   1715-1745. 


Lovat  on  the  Highlands  (1724) 

367 

Strength  of  the  clans 

368 

Disarmament  {1725) 

369 

Wade's  roads 

370 

Food  in  the  Highlands 

371 

Roads  and  agriculture 

372 

Agriculture 

373 

Land  tenure    . 

374 

Robbery  and  black-mail 

375 

Poetry  and  tales 

376 

Honour,  humanity,  and 

lospi 

tality 

377 

Celtic  oral  literature 

.    378 

Second-sight — illiteracy  . 

•     379 

Lady  Grange's  story 

.     380 

Character  of  Lord  Grange 

.     381 

Wodrow  on  Lady  Grange 

•     382 

Her  kidnapping  (1732)    . 

■     383 

Sufferings  of  Lady  Grange 

•     384 

Attempt  to  rescue  her  { 1740) 

•     38s 

Story  of  Glengarry's  wife  (172; 

7)       .     386 

Glengarry's  wife  (1727)    . 

•     387 

CHAPTER    XVI. 


LIFE    IN   THE    LOWLANDS,   1700-1745, 


Lowland  agriculture 

389 

University  curriculum 

401 

Food  and  houses     . 

390 

Lectures . 

402 

Enclosures 

391 

lidinburgh  University 

403 

The  Levellers  (1725) 

392 

Professors'  salaries  . 

404 

Education  starved   . 

39^ 

Poverty  . 

405 

Schools    . 

394 

Glasgow  University 

406 

The  dominie    . 

395 

Life  of  undergraduates 

407 

Ruddiman 

396 

Election  of  professors 

408 

Studies    .         , 

398 

Aberdeen  University 

409 

St  Andrews  University 

399 

The  libraries    . 

411 

The  classics     . 

1 

400 

Revival  of  literature 

412 

CONTENTS. 


XV 


Tea  and  poetry 

The  old  songs . 

No  art     . 

Finance   .... 

Christian  Shaw's  case  (1697) 


413 
414 

415 
416 

417 


A  fast  is  held 418 

Christian  Shaw  as  a  thread  manu- 
facturer           419 

Gardening  and  planting  .        .        .  420 


CHAPTER    XVII. 


THE    EXILED   COURT.       THE   AFFAIR    OF    PORTEOUS.       BEGINNING 
OF    "THE   'forty-five."       1728-1745. 


Wharton  and  Atterbury  (1727) 
Death  of  Atterbury  (1732) 
The  childhood  of  Prince  Charles 
"  The  Order  of  Toboso  " 
Reconciliation  and  death  of  Clem 

entina  (1735) 
Lovat  turns  to  Jacobitism  (1737) 
The  Porteous  affair  (1736) 
The  hanging  of  Porteous 
The  parsons  and  the  murder   . 
Argyll  against  Walpole  (1737) 
The  Kirk  and  the  Government 
Origins  of  the  civil  war    . 
War  with  Spain  (1739)     . 
Walpole  and  King  James 
Murray  and  Balhaldy 
Intrigues  in  1743 
Balhaldy's  schemes . 


423 
424 

425 
426 

427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 


Murray  in  Paris  (1743)    . 

Murray  and  the  English  Jacobhtes 

(1743-1744) 

Balhaldy  enlists  France  (1743) 
Balhaldy  launches  the  Prince  (1744) 
Dubious    dealing    of    Louis    with 

James  (1743)        .         .         .         . 
Prince    Charles    sails    to    P>ance 

(1744)  

Scottish  confusions  (1744) 
French  fleet  for  the  Thames  {1744) 
Disasters  of  the  French  fleet    . 
Charles  in  retirement  (1744)    . 
Murray  and  Charles 
James  rebukes  Charles    . 
Charles's  own  adventure  (1745) 
Murray  the  chief  cause    . 


440 

441 
442 

443 

444 

445 
446 

447 
448 

449 
450 
4SI 

452 
453 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 


the 

The  Prince  lands  (1745) 

The  first  recruits 

Cope's  preparations 

The  standard  is  raised 

Cope  evades  Charles 

Lord  George  Murray  joins  Charles 

Charles  crosses  the  Forth 

Panic  in  Edinburgh 

Lochiel  enters  Edinburgh 

The  Prince  marches  against  Cope 

The  eve  of  Prestonpans  . 

The  battle  of  Prestonpans 

Humane  conduct  of  Charles    . 

The  political  situation 

England  reinforced . 


RISING     OF     1745. 

•     458 

The  Prince  knows  his  danger . 

473 

•     459 

The  Prince's  plan  rejected 

■     474 

.     460 

Siege  of  Carlisle 

475 

.     461 

March  through  Lancashire 

•     476 

.     462 

Lancashire  does  not  rise. 

477 

463 

Appearance  of  the  army  . 

478 

•     464 

Lord  George's  feint 

479 

•     465 

The  situation  at  Derby    . 

.     480 

.     466 

The  chiefs  cause  the  retreat     . 

481 

•     467 

Charles's  army  of  the  North    . 

482 

.     468 

Skirmish  of  Inverurie 

483 

•     469 

The  fight  at  Clifton 

484 

•     470 

Garrison  loft  in  Carlisle  . 

486 

•     471 

Return  to  Scotland . 

487 

•     472 

XVI 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


THE    END    OF   JACOBITISM,    I  745- I  746. 


Hawley  advances  (1746)  . 

Falkirk  fight    . 

Inaction  after  Falkirk 

Death  of  the  Glengarry  leader 

Alleged  desertions  . 

Quarrel  of  Prince  and  chiefs 

The  Prince  prophesies  the  end 

The  rout .... 

The  retreat 

The  rout  of  Moy      . 

Operations  in  the  North  . 

Successes  of  Lord  George 

"  The  finest  part  of  the  expedition 

At  Culloden     .... 


491 

492 

495 
496 

497 
498 

499 
500 

501 
502 

503 
504 
505 
506 


The  attempted  surprise 

507 

Lord  George's  error 

508 

Forces  at  Culloden  . 

509 

Culloden 

510 

Conduct  of  the  Prince 

514 

Strange's  account    . 

515 

Conduct  of  the  Prince 

516 

No  fixed  rendezvous 

517 

Loyalty  to  the  Prince 

S18 

Cruelties  of  Cumberland 

519 

Unbroken  spirit  of  the  clans 

520 

Suppressive  legislation    . 

521 

The  end  . 

522 

APPENDIX. 


The  Death  of  Keppoch 


527 


INDEX  (by  Miss  E.  M.  Samson) 


537 


A   HISTORY   OF    SCOTLAND   FROM   THE 
ROMAN    OCCUPATION. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PARLIAMENTARY    AFFAIRS.       VICTORY   AND    DEATH    OF    DUNDEE. 

1689. 

With  occasional  exceptions,  as  under  Charles  I.  (i  640-1 641), 
Scotland  had  hitherto  been  almost  free  from  the  peculiarities  of 
constitutional  government.  The  king,  or  whatever  party  chanced 
to  be  in  power,  briskly  hurried  measures  through  Parliament  by 
means  of  the  packed  Committee  called  the  Lords  of  the  Articles. 
There  had  been  little  debating,  and  no  waste  of  time  in  verbal 
wranglings.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  Convention  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  Parliament  by  William  III.  (June  5,  1689),  all  the 
elements  which  make*  for  parliamentary  delay  were  introduced  by 
politicians  eager  for  parliamentary  reforms.  The  leading  statesmen 
may  be  briefly  characterised. 

The  Privy  Council  selected  by  the  king  included  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton,  who  was  appointed  Royal  Commissioner.  Hamilton 
inherited  the  wayward  and  unstable  character  of  a  house  de- 
moralised by  long  expectancy  of  the  Crown.  He  was  anxious 
himself  to  drive  time,  and  especially  to  avoid  the  full  restoration 
of  the  Kirk.  The  unstable  AthoU  went  to  Bath  :  one  of  his  sons 
was  in  prison  for  Jacobite  leanings ;  another,  though  inclined  to 
the  winning  side,  was  under  suspicion.     Argyll  had  military  duties 

VOL.  IV.  A 


2  THE   OPPOSITION. 

which  claimed  his  attention,  and  was  peculiarly  detested  by  the 
extreme  Whigs.  Crawford  was  appointed  President  in  the  Parlia- 
ment :  he  was  very  poor,  very  presbyterian,  and  his  letters,  almost 
alone  among  those  of  the  statesmen  of  the  period,  are  rich  in  the 
texts  and  unctuous  style  of  an  older  generation.  Yet  he  was  not 
a  patron  of  the  Cameronian  Remnant.  Office  and  the  spoils  of 
ofifice  were  what  he  desired.  He  was  on  bad  terms  with  Hamilton. 
The  Secretary  in  Scotland  was  Melville,  raised  to  an  earldom  by 
William.  He  had  been  of  the  Royal  side  at  Bothwell  Brig,  but 
found  it  convenient  to  go  to  Holland  at  the  time  of  the  Rye- 
house  Plot.  In  the  correspondence  of  Melville  we  find  him  lec- 
tured, warned,  and  threatened  by  Polwarth  and  others. 

Polwarth,  who  had  a  seat  in  the  Privy  Council,  was  as  fond  of 
public  speaking,  as  pragmatic,  as  much  opposed  to  authority,  as  he 
had  been  when  ruining  the  expedition  of  Argyll.  Sir  James  Mont- 
gomery of  Skelmorley,  also  of  the  Privy  Council,  was  his  parlia- 
mentary ally.  Both  were  great  in  "  the  Club,"  a  set  of  malcontents 
who  met  in  a  tavern,  arranged  their  schemes  in  private,  and,  as 
being  practically  an  organised  and  permanent  Committee,  com- 
manded the  majority  of  votes.  They  then  spent  the  first  part  of  the 
session  (June  5  to  August  2)  in  opposing  the  king,  in  demanding 
constitutional  privileges  for  the  House,  and  in  threatening  to  hang 
the  officials  whom  they  most  detested,  especially  these  old  enemies 
of  Claverhouse,  Sir  James  Dalrymple  and  his  son.  Sir  John,  who  was 
Lord  Advocate.  The  Solicitor-General,  Sir  William  Lockhart,  was 
of  course  a  representative  of  Government,  and  an  opponent  of  the 
Club.  In  the  modern  slang  of  the  House,  Parliament  was  guided 
and  dominated  by  a  "  cave  " — inamely,  the  Club — to  which  rallied 
disappointed  place-hunters,  such  as  Sir  James  Montgomery,  who, 
disappointed  in  his  hope  of  the  Secretaryship,  soon  engaged  in  a 
treasonable  plot.  In  Melville's  correspondence,  which  is  copious, 
we  meet  with  the  letters  of  all  these  men,  full  of  their  various 
humours.  The  moment  when  William  was  not  firmly  settled  on 
his  throne  was  favourable  to  agitation,  liberal  rather  than  patriotic.^ 

During  part  of  the  two  months  which  witnessed  the  wrangles 
of  the  Estates,  the  castle,  under  the  Duke  of  Gordon,  endured  a 
kind  of  burlesque  siege,  and  was  the  centre  of  trivial  conspiracies, 
exaggerated  by  Hamilton  in  hopes  of  diverting  the  assailants  of 
prerogative  from  their  attacks  on  Government.  Permission  to  tor- 
ture some  of  the  suspected  cavaliers  was  granted,  but  the  thumbscrew 


OPPOSITION    TO   "THE   ARTICLES."  3 

does  not  seem  to  have  been  needed.  They  had  httle  to  confess, 
and  that  Httle  they  told  freely.  All  this  while  the  great  Dundee  was 
moving  in  the  North,  but  his  actions  are  scarcely  touched  on  in 
the  contemporary  correspondence  of  men  absorbed  in  votes,  Bills, 
Acts,  and  amendments.  The  western  Whigs,  armed  and  organised, 
allowed  the  Cameronian  regiment,  under  Angus,  to  be  recruited 
from  their  numbers,  not  without  many  searchings  of  hearts  and 
many  pious  adjurations  to  soldiers  who  were  serving  an  uncov- 
enanted  prince.  They  petitioned  the  Estates  to  renew  the  Cov- 
enants and  act  on  the  advice  of  a  General  Assembly  which  should, 
of  course,  drive  out  conformist  ministers,  who  were  three-fourths 
of  the  placed  ministers  of  the  country,  or  more,  according  to 
Crawford's  reckoning.  If  a  General  Assembly  were  held,  these 
men  would  not  be  for  pure  presbyterial  government.  Therefore 
they  must  first  be  expelled,  and  later,  this  was  done  on  a  large 
scale  :  meanwhile  beginnings  were  made  in  individual  cases.  The 
country  was  so  far  from  being  Williamite,  that  the  Militia  were  not  to 
be  trusted — that  is,  the  Militia  as  distinguished  from  the  "  fencible 
men."  Of  the  Acts  passed  by  the  Estates  at  this  time,  hardly  one 
was  "touched"  with  the  sceptre  by  the  Commissioner.  They  were 
therefore  void,  and  little  need  be  said  about  them. 

As  the  affairs  of  the  Kirk  had  been  the  chief  occasion  of  the 
recent  discontents,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  the  new 
Parliament  would  have  begun  by  expelling  the  preachers  who  con- 
formed to  prelacy  and  refused  to  read  from  the  pulpit  the  order 
of  April  13,  denouncing  James  and  enjoining  prayers  for  William. 
But  the  ardent  souls  of  the  Club  desired  to  seize  the  opportunity 
of  a  king  still  unsettled  on  his  throne,  and  to  bring  the  Estates 
up  to  the  constitutional  level  of  the  Mother  of  Parliaments  at 
Westminster. 

On  June  1 7  Hamilton  communicated  his  instructions  as  to  the 
grievance  of  Lords  of  the  Articles.  These,  according  to  the  king's 
wish,  should  be  chosen,  eight  out  of  each  Estate,  plus  the  officers 
of  State.  The  Estates  voted  against  the  inclusion  of  officers  of 
State,  and,  when  Hamilton  would  not  accept  their  views,  sent  a 
written  remonstrance  to  the  king.  They  wished,  in  fact,  to  con- 
duct all  business  "  in  plain  Parliament,"  and  to  be  freed  from  the 
constraints  of  the  Lords  of  the  Articles.  On  April  13,  16S9,  they 
had  voted  that  "  the  Committee  called  the  Articles  is  a  great 
grievance  to  the  nation,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  no  Committees 


4  COMPROMISE   REJECTED. 

of  Parliament  but  such  as  are  freely  chosen  by  the  Estates  to 
prepare  motions  and  overtures  that  are  first  made  in  the  House." 
This  was  a  stretch  of  power  which  a  Scots  Parliament  had  never 
enjoyed  except  during  the  weak  years  of  Charles  I.  The  advanced 
party  were  the  more  anxious  to  secure  these  powers,  as  the  Duke 
of  Gordon,  on  June  13,  to  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  James's 
friends,  surrendered  Edinburgh  Castle.  If  William  was  to  be 
pressed  by  the  Club,  it  could  be  done  with  most  success  before 
he  had  overcome  armed  opposition.  "  I  see  plainly,"  wrote  Sir 
John  Dalrymple  to  Melville  the  Secretary,  "  they  resolve  to  neces- 
sitate the  king  to  do  all  things  by  the  advice  of  the  Parliament, 
and  to  fall  upon  any  that  he  shall  employ"  (such  as  Dalrymple 
himself)  "without  their  approbation."- 

William  offered  concessions.  On  June  18,  Hamilton,  as  Royal 
Commissioner,  introduced  a  Bill,  not  for  abolishing  but  for  regu- 
lating the  election  of  the  Lords  of  the  Articles.  There  should  be 
twenty-four  members  in  the  Articles,  the  Lords  choosing  eight  out 
of  their  Estate,  as  also  the  Barons  and  Burghs  out  of  theirs. 
These  Lords  of  the  Articles  should  not  prevent  the  House  from 
considering  any  matter,  even  if  its  consideration  had  been  rejected 
by  the  Twenty-four.  The  Act  as  to  the  Articles  passed  in  the  first 
Parliament  of  the  Restoration  was  to  be  rescinded,  but  officers  of 
State  were  to  remain  as  ex  officio  members  of  the  Articles,  over 
and  above  the  Twenty-four.^ 

The  House  kept  rejecting  this  compromise,  and  insisting  on  a 
return  to  the  state  of  affairs  as  it  was  in  1640.  On  June  26  they 
stated  the  nature  of  their  objections.  A  co/istani  Committee,  like 
that  proposed  by  William,  was  "a  great  grievance."  Delay,  they 
said,  was  in  the  very  nature  of  the  Articles  :  nothing  could  be  pro- 
posed till  the  Lords  of  the  Articles  had  first  considered  it,  even 
though,  by  the  compromise,  their  decision  was  not  to  be  final. 
The  compromise  fixed  the  number  of  members  in  the  Committee, 
which,  it  was  argued  on  the  other  side,  ought  to  be  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  House  in  each  case.  The  House  would  not  acquiesce 
in  the  necessary  presence  of  the  officers  of  State  in  the  Committee.* 

On  July  4  Hamilton  proposed  another  compromise,  raising  the 
number  of  members  from  each  Estate  to  eleven,  and  permitting 
monthly  or  even  more  frequent  re-elections.''  In  the  following  year 
the  House  obtained  all  its  desire,  and  was  a  free  Parliament  for 
seventeen  years,  after  which  it  ceased  to  exist.     Hamilton  had  tried. 


THE  DALRYMPLES  ATTACKED.  5 

vainly,  to  draw  the  trail  of  Kirk  reform  across  that  on  which  the 
malcontents  were  in  full  cry,  but  he  failed  (July  lo).     An  attack 
was  now  made  on  Argyll,  and  on  Sir  John  Dalrymple,  for  tampering 
with  their  instructions  when  they  went  to  offer  the  crown  to  William, 
Skelmorley  also  proposed  to  accuse  Sir  James  Dalrymple  of  giving 
the  king  certain  advice, — ">^  will  lay  it  at  Lord  Melville's  doors, 
and  we  shall  be  quit  of  both."     Dalrymple  was  for  a  dissolution^ 
— "the  longer  we  sit,  and  the  more  concessions,  the  worse."  *^     Bets 
of  five  to  one  were  laid  that  Dalrymple  would  be  sent  prisoner  to 
the  castle,  where  the  unhappy  Balcarres  was  again  immured.''     By 
July  13,  after  some  four  weeks'  session,  no  business  whatever  had 
been  done :  how  unlike  the  proceedings  of  the  Reformation  con- 
vention of  1560!     Hamilton  (July  13)  wrote  that  without  his  in- 
tervention the  layers  of  odds  on  Dalrymple's  imprisonment  would 
have  won  their  bets.*^     It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Mr  Renwick, 
the   last    martyr    of   the    Covenant,    had    been    condemned    while 
Dalrymple  was  King's  Advocate.     Though  himself  a  sufferer  under 
Claverhouse,  he  was  hated  by  friends  of  the  Covenant,  and  also  by 
the  older  noblesse,  while  his  opinion  of  the  clans  was  so  bad  that 
he  thought  they  would  earn  the  ;^2 0,000  offered  for  the  head  of 
Dundee,  as  of  old  for  that  of  Montrose.^     William  was  to  find  in 
Dalrymple  the  most  unpopular,  if  the  most  unscrupulously  service- 
able, of  his  ministers. 

The  advanced  party  now  challenged  the  king's  right  to  nominate 
judges,  and  by  "  stopping  the  Signet "  (practically  closing  the  Great 
Seal)  they  delayed  administration  of  judges.  Fifteen  thousand  of 
the  well-organised  fighting-men  of  the  Remnant  in  the  West  were 
in  arms,  under  officers  of  their  own  choosing.^*^  The  western  Whigs 
were  thought  to  intend  to  move  on  Edinburgh  for  the  laudable 
purpose  of  "  the  quickening  of  Parliament " :  they  by  no  means 
liked  or  understood  the  nature  of  constitutional  delays.  Sir  James 
Montgomery  (July  23)  was  showing  the  teeth  of  his  discontent  in 
a  letter  to  Melville.^^  An  Act  was  passed  against  the  employment 
in  State  offices  of  various  unpopular  persons,  especially  such  as 
had  served,  like  the  Dalrymples,  under  the  old  Government ;  but 
Hamilton  refused  to  "touch"  it  as  a  token  of  the  Royal  assent. 
Bills  were  introduced  on  Church  matters  :  that  of  Hamilton  retained 
patronage,  "a  heavy  yoke"  said  Crawford,  and  forbade  the 
preachers  to  meddle  in  affairs  of  State,  "the  cause  of  many  con- 
fusions and  scandalous  schisms."     Cardross's  draft  abolished  patron- 


6  MOVEiMENTS   OF   DUNDEE. 

age,  and  proposed  to  purge  out  the  disaffected  ministers.  Neither 
Bill  became  law,  though  the  Presbyterian  ministers  petitioned  for 
the  "  outing  "  of  conformists.  "  Outed  "  ministers  of  the  old  regime 
were,  however,  restored  to  their  parishes.  While  the  Estates  were 
still  voting  to  "  stop  the  Signet "  and  the  course  of  justice,  came 
tidings  first  of  Killiecrankie,  then  of  the  death  of  Dundee  in  the 
arms  of  victory, — the  defeat  of  Mackay  was  known  long  before  the 
consolatory  news  of  the  hero's  fall, — and  Parliament,  adjourned  on 
August  2,  did  not  meet  again  till  April.^^ 

This  Parliament,  with  its  Club,  resembled  the  French  Assemblies 
dominated  by  the  Jacobin  Club  in  the  Revolution.  It  granted  no 
supplies,  but  that  screw  had  not  the  force  of  the  same  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  the  Parliament  of  England,  Scottish  supply  being 
insignificant  to  the  English  king.  The  stoppage  of  justice  was 
dexterously  removed  by  William  in  November,  three  of  the  judges 
previously  on  the  Bench  being  appointed  as  an  examining  board 
for  the  admission  of  new  members.  The  President,  Sir  George 
Lockhart,  had  been  shot  in  the  street  by  Chiesly  of  Dairy,  father 
of  Lady  Grange,  later  so  notorious :  he  was  a  desperate  man, 
checked  in  a  course  of  brutal  injustice  to  his  wife.  The  new 
President  was  Sir  James  Dalrymple,  the  Coke  of  Scottish  Juris- 
prudence, a  man  hated  by  the  extremists,  and  bearing  the  burden 
of  that  melancholy  and  mysterious  family  history  which  Scott 
has  made  immortal  in  'The  Bride  of  Lammermoor.'  The  proceed- 
ings of  this  Parliament,  trammelled  by  the  distance  from  London 
and  the  tardiness  of  communications,  as  well  as  by  the  temper 
of  Polwarth  and  the  Club,  indicated,  no  less  than  other  signs  of 
the  times  to  be  later  discussed,  the  necessity  of  the  Union, 

During  the  short  session  of  June  5  to  August  2,  we  find  but 
little  in  the  correspondence  of  the  Scottish  Secretary  about  the 
movements  of  Dundee.  They  were,  indeed,  in  old  Scots  phrase, 
a  "runabout  raid";  Dundee  beginning  his  campaign  with  but  a 
handful  of  fifty  or  sixty  horses,  riding  about  the  country  to  raise 
the  clans  who  had  served  Montrose,  and  being  pursued  by 
Mackay,  who,  with  mixed  and  inadequate  forces,  tried  to  stop 
or  surround  him.^^ 

On  March  27  Dundee  replied  to  a  letter  from  Hamilton  and 
the  Convention,  summoning  him  to  lay  down  arms  and  appear 
in  Edinburgh.  He  said  that  he  was  living  in  peace  at  home, 
and  that  the  hillmen  had  not  been  told  to  lay  down  their  arms. 


MACKAY   AND   DUNDEE.  7 

His  horsemen  did  not  exceed  the  number  allowed  by  the  Con- 
vention, and  fell  far  short  of  Argyll's  companions.  Livingstone 
and  other  friends  were  known  to  have  left  him  :  he  could  not, 
in  safety,  pass  through  the  country  to  Edinburgh,  nor  could  he 
leave  his  wife  "in  the  state  she  was  in."  If  undisturbed  till  her 
trial  was  over,  he  would  give  parole  to  be  peaceful  "  in  the 
meantime." 

On  March  30  Dundee  was  denounced  rebel  in  Edinburgh, 
while  his  commission,  from  James  in  Ireland,  with  a  bragging 
letter  from  Melfort  (March  29),  was  intercepted.  Mackay  now 
sent  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone's  dragoons  to  seize  Dundee;  the 
regiment  (late  Dunmore's)  was  at  heart  loyal  to  James,  including 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Livingstone,  and  sent  useful  messages  to  the 
object  of  their  pursuit.  He  therefore  retreated  to  his  house  of 
Ogilvy,  taking  his  last  farewell  of  his  wife.  He  unfurled  the 
Royal  Standard  (April  12-15?)  on  a  hill-top  outside  Dundee,  and 
on  April  20  escaped  from  a  surprise  planned  by  Livingstone. 
Mackay,  to  prevent  Dundee  from  "playing  his  personage "  among 
the  clans,  and  fearing  that  the  Gordons  would  flock  to  him, 
ordered  the  Master  of  Forbes  to  use  his  hostile  clan,  and  bade 
AthoU  call  out  the  Stewarts  and  Murrays  to  intercept  him.  But 
Stewart  of  Ballechin,  the  factor  of  the  Marquis,  was  loyal,  and, 
whether  by  connivance  of  the  Atholl  family  or  not,  disobeyed 
the  command.  The  Earl  of  Mar,  too,  was  expected  to  be  use- 
ful, also  the  chief  of  the  Grants  was  to  hold  the  fords  of  Spey. 
But  the  Grants  (a  clan  with  a  strong  taste  for  neutrality)  made 
no  speed,  and  Mar  fell  ill  and  died,  while  Mackay  with  a  small 
force  marched  to  the  town  of  Dundee.  His  enemy  had  traversed 
the  North,  had  doubled  back,  and  was  at  Fettercairn  on  his 
way  to  Brechin,  but  hearing  of  Mackay's  approach  he  doubled 
back  again.  Mackay,  in  pursuit,  met  Forbes,  whose  levies  he 
dismissed  as  "little  like  the  work,"  and  at  Strathbogy  heard  of 
Dundee  in  his  neighbourhood.  But  he  also  heard,  as  he  moved 
north  after  Dundee,  who  evaded  him,  of  a  letter  in  which  the 
Viscount  told  the  Magistrates  of  Elgin  that  he  was  coming  with 
a  contingent  of  1000  Macdonalds,  whom  he  had  picked  up  at 
Inverness.  Mackay,  "at  some  nonplus,"  marched  towards  Elgin, 
hoping  to  be  recruited  by  local  levies,  but  found  the  country  quite 
devoid  of  enthusiasm  for  "  deliverance."  At  Forres  he  heard  that 
Dundee  had  vanished  from  Inverness,  and  himself  marched  thither. 


8  KEPPOCH   AT   INVERNESS. 

Dundee,  in  fact,  when  he  went  north  from  Fettercairn,  had  been 
joined  at  Castle  Gordon  by  Dunfermhne,  with  some  fifty  horse. 
Reaching  Inverness,  he  there  found  forces  less  valuable  than  those 
which  Montrose  took  over  from  Colkitto :  they  were  led  by 
Macdonald  of  Keppoch,  who  was,  says  Philip  in  '  The  Graemeid,' 
qiiodlibet  i7i  facimis  spoliorum  impidsus  amore,  "a  man  capable  of 
any  crime,  if  he  had  a  chance  of  looting."  Keppoch  happened 
then  to  be  at  Inverness,  besieging  the  town,  for  the  following 
reasons.  Dundee,  as  he  rode  home  from  Edinburgh  in  March, 
had  met  Drummond  of  Balhaldy  at  Dunblane,  who  told  him  of 
the  confederacy  of  the  usual  loyal  clans — Camerons,  IMacleans, 
Macdonalds.  He  sent  them  a  message,  and  as  he  moved  north 
before  Mackay  he  received  their  answer.  They  would  "  send  a 
detachment  to  meet  him  on  the  borders  of  the  Highlands," 
and  Keppoch  was  despatched  with  his  men  to  form  this  convoy. 
Macaulay  makes  the  strange  statement  that  Dundee  "at  this  time 
seems  to  have  known  little  and  cared  little  about  the  High- 
landers,"^* and  Balcarres  says  that  he  did  not  think  of  going 
to  the  Highlands  till  Livingstone  tried  to  capture  him.  Dundee, 
in  fact,  could  not  conceivably  be  ignorant  of  the  military  value 
of  the  plaids,  and  he  put  himself  into  communication  with  Lochiel 
from  the  beginning,  before  he  raised  the  standard. 

But  Dundee  may  well  have  been  amazed  by  the  conduct  of 
Keppoch,  a  rebel  to  the  Stewart  as  well  as  to  the  Orange  Govern- 
ment. He  found  the  chief  in  the  act  of  "  holding  up  "  the  town 
of  Inverness  for  ransom,  and  informed  him  that  he  "would 
be  looked  on  as  a  common  robber."  ^^  Dundee  extricated  the 
town,  Keppoch  receiving  4000  marks  (or  ;,^2  7oo  Scots),  which 
Dundee  promised  to  repay  —  when  the  king  came  to  his  own 
again !  Keppoch,  then,  in  place  of  acting  on  Lochiel's  orders 
and  joining  Dundee,  strolled  home  with  his  plunder.^^ 

Dundee  marched  to  Invergarry,  Glengarry's  castle  on  Loch  Oich, 
thence  to  Badenoch,  and,  hearing  of  Mackay's  attempts  to  raise, 
or  rather  hound  out,  the  reluctant  neutral  clans — Forbeses  and 
Grants, — he  fixed  a  tryst  for  May  18  at  Lochiel's  house  on  Loch 
Arkaig  in  Lochaber,  a  country  so  remote  and  rugged  as  to  be 
safe  from  regular  forces.  Dundee,  leaving  Mackay  at  Inverness, 
now  marched  through  Badenoch  and  Atholl,  where  Ballechin  aided 
him,  descended  on  Perth,  and  took  public  money,  horses,  and 
prisoners,  including  the  Laird  of  Blair,  who  was  sent  to  a  remote 


DUNDEE   IN   LOCHABER.  9 

western  island  of  the  Macleans.  Mackay,  after  fortifying  Inverness, 
attempted  to  win  the  Erasers  and  Mackenzies,  or  rather  to  hound 
them  out,  according  to  Lord  Tarbet's  letters,  by  force,  but  he  found 
them  rather  against  him  than  for  him.  He  therefore  ordered 
General  Ramsay,  with  600  of  the  Scoto-Dutch,  to  come  north 
through  AthoU  and  Badenoch  and  meet  him,  lest  Dundee  with  the 
Camerons  should  fall  on  his  own  flank.  But  the  civil  authorities 
in  Edinburgh  took  a  crowd  of  Dutch  fishing-vessels  for  the  French 
fleet,  were  alarmed,  and  detained  Ramsay,  greatly  endangering 
Mackay.  He,  by  Tarbet's  advice,  proposed  that  Government 
should  buy  up  the  Argyll  superiorities  over  the  Camerons,  Macleans, 
and  other  clans  for  ;;^5ooo,  as  he  reckoned  that  these  loyalists  were 
really  at  war  with  Argyll,  not  against  William.  But  Government 
pitched  on  Campbell  of  Calder  to  negotiate  this  treaty — a  Campbell 
"in  whom  the  Highlanders  could  not  be  supposed  to  repose  much 
trust,"  says  honest  Mackay.  He  himself  wrote  twice  to  Lochiel, 
who  scorned  to  answer.  Glengarry,  when  approached,  politely 
suggested  to  Mackay  that  he  should  follow  the  example  of  Monk 
and  procure  a  Restoration  ! 

Meanwhile  Dundee  threatened  the  town  of  his  own  titular  name, 
in  which  Lieutenant-Colonel  Livingstone,  with  his  dragoons,  kept 
quiet,  being  friendly,  but  unable  to  join  him.  Having  picked 
up  a  few  cavaliers,  Dundee  went  back  through  AthoU,  where 
Ballechin  secured  the  safety  of  his  communications  and  intercepted 
the  envoys  of  Mackay  to  Ramsay  and  to  Edinburgh,  From  Strath- 
Tay  Dundee  led  his  men  by  rough  paths  to  Loch  Rannoch,  and, 
passing  along  the  north  side  of  that  black  wind-beaten  mere,  went 
by  way  of  Loch  Treig-head,  north-west,  to  Glenroy.  Many  horses 
were  hopelessly  bogged,  and  the  author  of  'The  Grsemeid,'  with 
others,  tramped  on  foot,  carrying  his  saddle  on  his  shoulders, 
"  through  regions  condemned  to  perpetual  frost,  and  never  before 
trodden  by  the  foot  of  man  or  horse.  .  .  .  Gladly  Lochaber  re- 
ceives the  Graham  into  her  bosom.  .  .  ."  "  Far  Lochaber  is 
certainly  the  world's  end  ! "  exclaimed  the  weary  troopers.  The 
Cameron  tartan  seems  then  to  have  been  blue  and  yellow,  if  we 
may  believe  the  poet.  Dundee  summoned  the  chiefs.  Glengarry 
and  the  rest,  and  the  fiery  cross  was  sent  round.  The  cross,  of 
old,  had  been  dipped  in  the  blood  of  a  slaughtered  goat,  but  this 
appears  to  have  been  regarded  now  as  pagan,  and  the  cross  was 
painted  with  red  wax.^'^ 


lO  NARROW   ESCAPE   OF   MACKAY. 

Meanwhile  Mackay,  at  Inverness,  had  been  disappointed,  as  we 
saw,  in  making  a  junction  with  Ramsay,  who  was  marching  from 
Edinburgh.  Ramsay,  as  he  went  north,  found  the  Atholl  men 
armed  :  they  averred  that  Dundee  lay  between  him  and  Mackay, 
and,  when  the  two  Williamite  leaders  might  have  joined  hands, 
thinking  that  there  was  a  Hon  in  his  path  Ramsay  hurried  back 
to  Perth.  Dundee,  knowing  Ramsay's  movements  through  de- 
spatches intercepted  by  Ballechin,  tried  to  fall  on  him  in  Badenoch ; 
and  Mackay,  much  puzzled,  set  out  to  cut  between  Dundee  and 
the  south  country.  He  hoped  to  surprise  the  Graham,  and  actually 
came  within  a  mile  and  a  half  of  his  strongly  situated  camp  within 
a  wood  and  marsh,  but  did  not  repeat  the  success  of  Leslie  over 
Montrose  at  Philiphaugh.  Disappointed,  Mackay  denounced  Tarbet 
(who  was  apparently,  to  judge  by  his  letters,  doing  his  best  for  a 
peaceful  settlement)  and  Atholl  to  the  Government.  Tarbet  was 
arrested,  but  after  being  released  went  to  London,  where  he  and 
his  cousin  Melville,  the  Secretary  for  Scotland,  determined  "to 
lose  the  General  [Mackay],  .  .  .  though  with  him  should  be  lost 
at  the  same  time  the  king's  service,"  says  Mackay. ^^ 

That  General,  now  reinforced  from  England,  concentrated  in 
the  Grant  country,  hoping  much  from  the  sabres  of  Livingstone's 
dragoons  on  the  level  "  haughs "  or  plains  by  the  river.  It  was 
then  a  military  postulate  that  Highlanders  could  not  face  cavalry, 
a  theory  which  the  clans  were  to  demolish  in  practice.  A 
deserter  or  spy  from  Dundee's  camp  revealed  to  Mackay  the  real 
intentions  of  Livingstone's  dragoons,  which  made  him  uneasy. 
Dundee  now  took  and  burnt  the  fort  of  Ruthven  held  for  William 
in  Badenoch, — a  fort  which  later  defied  Prince  Charles  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  campaign  of  1745.  The  deserter  was  released,  and 
was  able  to  tell  Mackay  that  his  cavalry  was  in  treacherous  com- 
munication with  Dundee,  who  was  within  three  miles  of  him. 
Mackay  retreated  before  an  enemy  "four  times  his  number,"  and 
escaped,  "the  hand  of  Providence  being  very  visible." ^^  The 
'  Memoirs  of  Lochiel '  attribute  Mackay's  escape  to  the  darkness 
of  the  night :  ~^  it  was  indeed  fortunate  for  the  Whig  cause,  since, 
if  Mackay's  little  force  of  700  had  been  swallowed  up,  all  Scotland 
north  of  Tay  would  have  rallied  to  King  James.^^  It  is  curious 
to  find  the  worthy  laird  of  Scourie  (Mackay)  stopping  to  moralise, 
quite  in  Knox's  manner,  on  the  parallel  between  himself  and  "  Saul, 
David,  and  others,"  whom  "God  called  to  a  double  blessing." ^^ 


STOUT   CONDUCT   OF   THE    MACLEANS.  I  I 

Hurrying  away  from  Dundee  south-east,  as  hard  as  he  could, 
Mackay  was  met  by  reinforcements,  under  Berkley  (Barclay)  and 
Leslie;  he  at  once  turned  again  in  the  clear  long  twilight,  and 
meant  to  encounter  the  foe  from  whom  he  had  been  flying.  This 
attempt  to  surprise  Dundee  at  Edenglassie  was  frustrated  by  the 
treachery  of  some  of  Livingstone's  dragoons.  Mackay's  force,  how- 
ever, had  a  ruffle  with  a  detached  wandering  party  of  Dundee's, — 
Macleans,  under  Lochbuy, — who,  surprised  by  200  horse,  seized  a 
hill  and  held  it  with  the  resolution  characteristic  of  their  clan.^^ 
Mackay  and  the  Lochiel  writer  give  totally  contradictory  accounts 
of  the  losses  on  both  sides,  on  June  9 — a  date  is  welcome  !  2*  The 
assailants  were  some  of  Livingstone's  dubious  dragoons  :  they  were 
true,  however,  to  their  salt,  and  were  accompanied  by  some  of 
Berkley's  (Mackay's  "  Barclay's  ")  horse.  Surrounded  by  the  hostile 
cavalry,  the  Macleans  charged  with  the  claymore  and  routed  the 
enemy.  The  author  of  '  The  Graemeid '  says  that  the  Macleans 
stripped  the  red  coats  from  the  fallen  English  :  he  himself,  being 
in  command  of  the  cavalry  outposts  of  Dundee,  led  the  Macleans, 
who  had  lost  their  way  in  the  dark,  to  his  chief.^^  Dundee  now 
heard  from  the  friendly  dragoons  that  they  could  not  join  him,  they 
were  too  closely  watched,  and  there  were  rumours  that  James's  son, 
the  Duke  of  Berwick,  was  a  prisoner.  The  Viscount  now  disbanded 
his  Highland  levies  for  the  time,  the  Gordons  left  him,  and  he  was 
in  bad  health.  He  was  presently  joined  by  Clanranald  with  his 
Macdonalds,  and  by  Macdonald  of  Sleat,  by  some  regarded  as  the 
head  of  the  Sons  of  Donald,  though  Glengarry  has  probably  the 
best  claim  to  represent  the  blood  of  the  Isles.* 

Mackay,  failing  to  find  Dundee,  went  to  Inverness  and  disposed 
of  his  forces  here  and  there,  as  seemed  best,  about  the  country. 
But  he  found  that  he  could  not  hope  to  subdue  Dundee's  guerilla 
war  in  the  hills.  He  therefore  requested  the  Government  to  make 
and  garrison  a  strong  fort  at  Inverlochy  (now  Fort  William),  to 
bridle  the  Camerons,  Stewarts  of  Appin,  and  Macdonalds  of  Glencoe 
and  Keppoch.  After  some  movements  in  Braemar  he  himself  went 
to  Edinburgh.  But  there  he  found  the  wrangling  Parliamenteers 
utterly  inefficient  and  indolent ;  they  were  rich  in  pretexts  for  delay, 
and,  absorbed  in  their  Bills  and  Clauses  and  attack  and  defence  of 

*  This  appears  to  be  proved  in  'Vindication  of  the  Clanronald  of  Glengarry'  : 
Edinburgh,  1S21.  My  copy  bears  the  autograph  of  "Col.  Ronaldson  M'Donell 
of  Glengarry  and  Clanronald." 


12  ADVICE  OF  LOCHIEL. 

Prerogative,  they  had  not  even  aided  Mackay  by  sending  frigates  to 
cruise  on  the  west  coast.-^  At  the  moment  when  Dundee  nearly 
overtook  Mackay  at  Edenglassie  (when  the  hand  of  Providence  was 
so  visible  to  the  Scoto-Dutch  General),  the  mischievous  Keppoch 
slipped  off  with  his  men,  ravaged  the  lands  of  Mackintosh,  his  feudal 
foe,  and  burned  the  house  of  Dunachton.  Dundee,  "  seeing  the 
country  all  in  a  flame,  .  .  .  was  in  a  very  great  rage  when  he  was 
informed  of  the  authors."  He  told  Keppoch  that  he  would  rather 
be  a  private  in  a  disciplined  force  "  than  command  such  men  as 
he,"  and  that  the  chief  must  pack  off.  Keppoch  made  an  apology, 
— he  thought  Mackintosh  was  untrue  to  the  cause  !  ^"^ 

While  Mackay,  in  Edinburgh,  was  making  preparations  to  secure 
the  great  pass  from  the  west  Highlands  down  Strath-Tay,  meaning 
by  that  road  to  reach  Inverlochy  and  erect  forts  to  bridle  the  clans, 
Dundee  had  collected  an  army  of  4000  men  of  the  Macleans, 
Macdonalds,  Camerons,  and  Stewarts,  and  was  in  hopes  of  ammuni- 
tion and  reinforcements  from  James  in  Ireland.  The  delay  in 
sending  these  supports  greatly  annoyed  the  Highlanders,  and  they 
had  also  heard  how  the  Duke  of  Gordon  tamely  surrendered  Edin- 
burgh Castle  (June  13).^^  During  the  interval  of  repose  Dundee 
consulted  the  chiefs  as  to  the  propriety  of  drilling  their  men  and 
teaching  them  the  modern  methods  of  war,  such  as  Sir  James 
Turner  describes  in  his  '  Pallas  Armata.'  The  Lowland  gentlemen 
and  the  younger  chiefs  preferred  this  plan,  not  so  Lochiel.  This 
chief,  in  youth,  had  been  a  ward  of  the  Marquis  of  Argyll,  but  had 
been  won  over  from  Covenanting  courses  by  the  cruelty  of  the 
Presbyterians  after  Philiphaugh,  and  by  the  constancy  of  their 
victims,  the  cavaliers,  who  were  put  to  death  at  St  Andrews.  His 
interests,  also,  were  naturally  opposed  to  those  of  his  feudal 
superiors,  the  Campbells,  who  had  absorbed  so  many  of  the  weaker 
clans,  and  were  ready  to  swallow  the  Camerons.  Lochiel  was  no 
rude  illiterate  chief  of  the  old  school,  but  a  man  like  the  great 
Maclean  of  Dowart,  in  the  age  of  James  VL,  acquainted  with 
courts  as  well  as  with  camps.  He  possessed  unparalleled  strength 
and  vigour ;  when  ninety  years  of  age  he  had  not  lost  a  tooth, 
and,  says  a  writer  who  met  him  in  17 16,  "he  wrung  some  blood 
from  the  point  of  my  fingers  with  a  grasp  of  his  hand."  He  was 
not  the  less  respected  for  stories  that  he  had  the  second-sight.^® 
The  sagacious  chief  was  averse  to  the  drilling  of  the  Highlanders, 
as  suggested  by  Dundee.     'J'he  natural  mode  of  Highland  warfare, 


QUARREL  WITH   GLENGARRY.  I  3 

under  the  chiefs  and  tacksmen  as  officers,  had  been  triumphant  in 
the  days  of  Montrose.  A  few  weeks  of  drill  would  change  the 
clans  into  ordinary  recruits,  whereas  their  tactics  were  to  charge 
up  to  the  enemy's  line,  deliver  one  volley  at  a  few  yards'  distance, 
and  rush  in  with  the  sword.  Lochiel  instanced  the  recent  conduct 
of  the  Macleans,  when  they  routed  Mackay's  dragoons,  and  his 
advice  prevailed  with  Dundee. 

Meanwhile  that  leader  saw  a  new  example  of  Highland  manners. 
The  Grants  had  hanged  two  or  three  Camerons.     The  Camerons, 
on  this   quarrel,   marched  against   the  Grants  in   Glen   Urquhart. 
Among  the  Grants  was  a  Macdonell  of  Glengarry's  family,   who, 
confiding  "  in  his  name  and  genealogy,"  bade  the  Camerons  retire. 
They  replied  that  they  respected  his  name,  but  did  not  see  why 
it  should  protect  the  king's  rebels  of  another  clan.     In  the  fight 
which  followed,  the  Camerons  drove  the  cattle  of  the  Grants,  but 
unluckily  slew  this  Macdonell.     Glengarry,  in  great  anger,  appealed 
to   Dundee   and    demanded    satisfaction   from   Lochiel.      Dundee, 
a   Lowlander,   could    not  see  how  Glengarry  had    been   wronged. 
If  any   one   had   a   right    to    complain,    it   was   himself,    for   the 
Camerons  had  acted  without   his  orders.     "  On  your  principles," 
said    Dundee,    "if  we   meet    the    enemy   and   kill   a    Macdonald 
or  two  among  them,  what  then  ? "     Glengarry  put  on   an  air  of 
bluster ;  Lochiel's  men  outnumbered  his,  he  said,  but  valour  would 
equal  the  difference  in  force.     Lochiel,  who  understood  his  man, 
only  laughed  :    the  chiefs   met    at   dinner   in    the  friendliest  way. 
Glengarry,  in  fact,  had  merely  been  acting  a  part  to  keep  up  his 
prestige   with    the   clan.       Indeed,    in    Dundee's   final    battle   the 
Macdonalds  resigned  their  claim  to  fight  always  in  the  right  wing 
of  the  Royal  army.^*'     On   June   27    (?)  or   28   (so   the  letter   is 
endorsed),  Dundee,  who  had  at  last  heard  from  James  in  Ireland, 
wrote  to  explain  his  situation  to  Melfort,  who  was,  unhappily,  with 
the  king.     Dundee  anxiously  hoped  for  the  fall  of  Derry,  then  in 
the  agony  of  its  famous  siege.     He  insisted  on  reinforcements  from 
Ireland  :  he  had  received  only  four  or  five  barrels  of  ammunition, 
and,  having  no  money,  he  dared  not  go  down  into  the  Lowlands 
where  his  men  would   make  enemies  by  looting  for  a  livelihood. 
"We  have  not  twenty  pounds."     He  assured  his  correspondent  of 
his  friendship,  but  could  not  conceal  the  fact  of  Melfort's  extreme 
unpopularity  with  the  king's  party,  though  he  assured  people  that 
Melfort  was  for  universal  tolerance  in   religion.     Even  if  he  had 


14  THE  RACE  FOR  BLAIR  ATHOLL. 

been,  his  way  would  have  been  odious  to  the  Presbyterians.  "  By 
some  steps  that  maybe  you  was  forced  to  make  in  favour  of  these 
ungrateful  beasts,  the  Presbyterians,  you  gave  unhappy  umbrage  to 
both  the  others."  On  July  7,  James,  writing  from  Dublin,  said  that 
he  was  sending — one  regiment !  About  money  he  said  nothing. 
From  Struan,  on  July  15,  Dundee  gave  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone 
news  of  the  fall  of  Derry,  whether  he  believed  in  the  report  or 
not,  and  courteously  declined  to  turn  his  coat  and  surrender  like 
the  Duke  of  Gordon.  "Wherein  I  can  serve  you  or  your  family 
at  any  time  you  think  convenient  you  may  freely  employ  me."  ^^ 

Mackay  now  intended  to  march  from  Edinburgh,  join  hands  with 
Argyll,  and  scatter  the  clans  in  loyal  Lochaber.  He  meant  to  take 
4000  foot,  four  troops  of  horse,  and  four  of  dragoons — then  a  kind 
of  mounted  infantry.  The  foot  consisted  of  a  battalion  from  each 
of  his  Scoto-Dutch  regiments,  with  the  regiments  of  Viscount 
Kenmure  (who  owed  Dundee  a  grudge),  and  of  Leven  and  Hast- 
ings. At  Stirling  Mackay  meant  to  review  some  regiments  of  foot 
and  new  levies  of  cavalry. 

But  between  Stirling  and  his  goal  lay  the  castle  of  Blair  Atholl, 
commanding  Strath-Tay  and  the  Pass  of  Killiecrankie  through  the 
Garry  valley.  The  place  belonged  to  the  shifty  Marquis  of  Atholl 
{of  the  family  of  Murray  of  Tullibardine).  Mackay  was  now  in- 
formed by  the  son  of  the  Marquis,  Lord  Murray,  that,  contrary  to 
his  commands,  Stewart  of  Ballechin,  commissioned  by  Dundee,  was 
fortifying  the  Castle  of  Blair  in  James's  interest :  Atholl  himself  was 
in  England,  like  his  descendant  during  the  Forty -Five.  Lord 
Murray  was  sent  by  Mackay  to  Blair  to  keep  his  clan  neutral  : 
he  reported  that  he  had  done  his  best,  but  that  Ballechin  was 
obstinate.  ^^ 

Lord  Murray  now  received  three  letters  from  Dundee,  which  he 
did  not  answer,  but  sent  them  to  Melville  in  London.  He  declared 
that  he  had  done  his  best  for  the  Williamite  cause,  by  desire  of  his 
father,  who  was  still  at  Bath.  It  appears  that,  whoever  won,  the 
Atholl  family  was  safe  :  they  would  get  credit  from  James  for  the 
loyalty  of  the  Atholl  Stewarts,  if  Dundee  succeeded  ;  if  William 
were  victorious,  the  Murrays  had  been  kept  from  joining  Dundee. 
"  The  Marquis  of  Atholl,"  says  Macaulay,  "  was  the  falsest,  the  most 
fickle,  the  most  pusillanimous  of  mankind," — so  much  so,  that  at 
Bath  he  only  "pretended  to  drink  the  waters."* 

•  Macaulay  characteristically  styles  Ballechin  "  Rallenach." 


DUNDEE   AND    LORD   MURRAY.  I  5 

Dundee's  first  letter  to  Lord  Murray  (July  19)  informs  him  that 
"from  your  own  mouth  I  know  your  principles,"  Jacobite;  but 
Lord  Murray  now  had  the  opposite  set  of  principles.  James  has 
publicly  promised,  says  Dundee,  "that  he  will  secure  the  Protestant 
religion  as  by  law  established,  and  put  them  in  possession  of  all 
their  privileges," — since  the  Restoration,  —  "which  should  satisfy 
the  Episcopal  and  Cavalier  party  ? "  (sic.)  "  He  promises  to  all 
oi/ier  dissenters  liberty  of  conscience,  which  ought  to  please  the 
Presbyterians.    .    .    ." 

Nothing  could  possibly  be  more  odious  to  the  Presbyterians 
than  "  liberty  of  conscience,"  as  Dundee  ought  to  have  known. 
There  is  to  be  a  general  amnesty,  he  says,  except  for  the  subjects 
who  came  over  from  Holland  with  the  usurper  William,  and  those 
who  voted  to  dethrone  the  king, — pretty  sweeping  exceptions! 
James  "  cannot  alter  the  clement  temper  that  has  ever  been  found 
in  the  family,  and  has  eminently  appeared  in  his  person,"  writes 
Dundee  quite  seriously !  He  adds,  with  truth,  that  he  has  told 
Melfort  of  his  unpopularity,  has  hinted  that  he  should  resign,  and 
Melfort  will  resign,  even  against  the  king's  desire.  On  July  23, 
Dundee,  still  unanswered,  says  that  he  has  taken  possession  of  the 
Castle  of  Blair,  since  "  I  heard  the  rebels  designed  to  require  you 
to  deliver  it  up  to  them,  which  would  have  forced  you  to  declare 
before  the  time  I  thought  you  designed."  Murray  must,  at  one 
time,  have  been  in  two  minds ;  however,  now  he  was  resolutely 
Williamite.^^  Balhaldie,  in  the  '  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,'  says  that 
Lord  Murray  in  AthoU  in  July  pretended  that  he  would  join 
Dundee,  but  that  Ballechin  suspected  him,  and  seized  the  Castle 
of  Blair  before  he  could  garrison  it.^*  Mackay  now  hurried  to  take 
that  castle  which  Montrose  had  held  and  used  as  a  base  all  through 
his  year  of  victory.  Thither  his  western  Highlanders  came  to  join 
him,  while  the  levels  of  Strathspey  afforded  supplies.  There  now 
began  a  race  between  Dundee  and  Mackay  for  this  place  of  strength, 
ever  since  1746  shorn  of  its  battlements,  but  even  in  that  year  able 
to  defy  Lord  George  Murray. 

Dundee  was  delayed  by  waiting  for  Lochiel  to  come  up.  Mean- 
while he  sent  two  gentlemen  to  Lord  Murray,  from  whom  (July  25) 
he  still  expected  loyalty  to  James.  Lord  Murray's  clansmen,  now 
convinced  of  his  real  designs,  rushed  down  to  the  Tummell,  and 
drank  King  James's  health  in  water.  Ballechin  took  command 
of  this  fine  fighting  body,  who  went  off  and   attacked   Mackay's 


l6  KILLIECRANKIE   PASS. 

Stragglers  after  Killiecrankie.  Mackay  met  Lord  Murray,  whom 
he  misdoubted.  Murray  said  that  his  clan  had  gone  off  to  put 
their  cattle  in  security,  "  which  made  the  General  not  so  apt  to 
judge  ill  of  Murray  as  others  did."  Dundee  had  been  joined  by 
Cannon  with  James's  promised  regiment,  merely  300  new  raised, 
naked,  undisciplined  Irishmen,  who  added  to  the  disgust  of  the 
clans  by  bringing  news  that  supplies  sent  by  James  had  been 
captured  by  English  ships  near  Mull.  Dundee,  however,  had 
won  the  hearts  of  his  army,  half-starved  as  they  were.  He  reached 
Blair  on  July  27,  and  heard  that  Mackay  had  already  entered  the 
narrow  defile  of  Killiecrankie.  In  that  Pass,  where  the  railway  now 
runs,  under  precipitous  cliffs,  through  woods  that  yield  glimpses  of 
the  foaming  stream  of  the  Garry,  the  track  at  that  time  only  per- 
mitted three  men  to  march  abreast.^^  The  question  was  debated : 
Should  Dundee  wait  with  his  slender  force  at  Blair  till  the  mass  of 
the  clans  came  up,  or  should  he  advance  and  attack  Mackay  ?  The 
regular  officers  were  for  the  former  course.  Their  men  were  weary 
and  hungry.  True,  the  dans  had  been  victorious  under  Montrose, 
but  then  at  first  they  had  only  to  deal  with  militia.  On  the  other 
side  Glengarry  spoke.  He  inherited  the  spirit  of  the  Glengarry  of 
Montrose's  time,  "as  if  by  the  Pythagorean  transmigration  of  souls  " ; 
being  "  more  of  a  politician  than  an  open,  frank,  and  sincere  neigh- 
bour," says  Balhaldie.  He  was  in  every  rising,  "yet  he  managed 
matters  so  that  he  lost  nothing  in  the  event."  He  was  brave,  but 
not  socially  trustworthy.  This  chief  counselled  advance, — the  clans 
should  keep  on  the  high  ground,  far  above  the  Garry.  Lochiel 
had  been  silent ;  to  him  Dundee  appealed.  He  disclaimed  know- 
ledge of  war ;  his  successes  in  skirmishes  he  owed,  he  said,  to  the 
valour  of  his  clan,  not  to  his  own  skill  as  a  tactician.  But  he  was 
for  instant  fight :  the  men  were  in  good  heart,  the  sole  hope  was 
in  taking  the  oifensive.  It  was  vain  to  think  of  stopping  the 
Pass — Mackay  must  have  emerged  from  the  defile.  Dundee's  face 
brightened  as  he  heard  Lochiel,  with  whom  he  expressed  his 
hearty  agreement. ^^ 

Lochiel  had  still  a  word  to  say.  Dundee  must  not  expose  him- 
self:  on  him  depended  army,  king,  and  country.  If  the  Viscount 
would  not  give  his  promise,  Lochiel  and  his  clan  would  retire. 
The  whole  Council  applauded  the  advice  of  the  veteran  Cameron, 
but  Dundee  implored  to  be  permitted  "to  give  one  shear  darg" 
(one  harvest-day's  work)  to  King  James.     The  clans  would  look 


QUESTION  OF  THE  BATTLEFIELD.  I7 

for  no  less ;  in  future  he  would  promise  never  to  risk  his  person  : 
fatal  words,  but  worthy  of  Claverhouse.  Dundee  marched  along  by 
the  high  ground,  while  Mackay  had  cleared  the  Pass  and  was  rest- 
ing his  men  in  a  long  wide  "  haugh,"  then  under  corn,  on  the  left 
bank  of  the  Garry,  below  the  house  of  Urrard.*  In  this  wide 
haugh,  hard  by  the  road,  is  a  standing-stone,  probably  prehistoric, 
which  is  often  erroneously  pointed  out  to  tourists  as  marking  the 
spot  where  Dundee  fell.  The  stone  certainly  bore  this  character 
as  early  as  1735.  Above  this  position  is  a  steep  declivity,  and 
crowning  it  a  plateau  on  which  stand  the  house  and  gardens  of 
Urrard,  then  styled  Runraurie.  Bodies  of  Highlanders  were  seen 
by  Mackay  on  the  heights  to  the  south  of  this  plateau,  and  above 

*  Professor  Sanford  Terry,  in  his  '  John  Graham  of  Claverhouse,'  pp.  334,  337, 
fixes  the  field  of  battle  farther  to  the  west,  between  New  Mains  and  Lettoch.  I 
follow  the  narrative  of  Donald  M'Bain,  who  was  present  (Napier,  iii.  724). 
He  says,  "we  drew  up  at  Runraurie"  (Urrard),  leaving  the  baggage  at  the  laird's 
smithy.  A  well-cut  half-moon-shaped  shelter  trench  scoring  the  round  hill  front 
just  east  of  Urrard,  above  the  plateau,  seems  to  lend  probability  to  my  opinion. 

When  looking  for  the  probable  position  of  Dundee,  while  he  was  waiting  for 
sunset  to  make  his  charge,  I  observed  this  trench  embracing  the  semicircular  front 
of  the  hill  :  it  seems  to  be  of  no  service  for  any  pastoral,  or  indeed  for  any  but  a 
military,  purpose.  If  I  am  right,  Dundee  must  have  occupied  his  men  during  this 
long  pause  in  making  this  shelter  from  Mackay's  feeble  light  guns.  In  any  case, 
the  Marquis  of  Tullibardine,  who  not  only  knows  the  ground  but,  from  experience, 
the  nature  of  war,  accepts  the  Urrard  site  for  the  battle,  and  informs  me  that  on 
this  site  relics  of  the  fray  have  been  discovered. 

In  'The  Scottish  Historical  Review,'  October  1905,  Mr  A.  H.  Millar,  adopting 
Professor  Sanford  Terry's  site,  quotes  verses  attributed  to  Iain  Lorn  Macdonald, 
"who  was  with  the  Jacobite  forces"  at  the  battle,  as  well  as  at  Inverlochy  in 
1645.  The  poet  speaks  of  arrows  as  the  missiles  of  the  clans,  artillery  that  would 
have  shocked  Dugald  Dalgetty.  He  describes  the  fight  as  beginning  at  sunset, 
which  is  true,  but  hardly  "confirms  Professor  Terry's  account  of  the  battle  in 
every  particular."     The  solitary  indication  of  the  site  of  the  battle  is  given  in 

the  words — 

"  In  the  tender  birch  copse, 
Near  the  farm  of  MacGeorge, 
Full  many  a  gay  cloak  lies  torn." 

Unluckily  we  do  not  know  where  MacGeorge  practised  agriculture,  nor  can  the 
birch  copse  be  identified;  and  when  we  hear  that  the  clans  occupied  "the  crest  of 
the  hill,"  we  can  only  ask  "of  which  hill .''"  The  poem,  whoever  wrote  it,  was 
composed  after  1 7 14:  the  poet,  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  says  that  King  James 
shall  return,  and  "to  Hanover  thou  shalt  go  back,"  "thou"  being  one  of  the 
Georges.  Now  Iain  Lorn,  the  supposed  author,  died  in  1709  or  1710,  "aged 
about  ninety"  {pp.  cit.,  pp.  64,  70).  The  verses  do  nothing  towards  confirming 
any  theory  of  the  site  of  the  battlefield,  and,  unless  interpolated  at  a  later  time, 
cannot  be  by  Iain  Lorn,  "an  eye-witness,"  if  he  was  an  eye-witness. 
VOL.  IV.  B 


l8  DISPOSITION   OF   THE   FORCES. 

it,  where  a  steep,  round,  grassy  hill  is  scored  with  a  semicircular 
trench,  perhaps  the  work  of  Dundee's  men.  They  had  enough 
time  to  make  it. 

Mackay  saw  that  from  the  plateau  of  Urrard  the  clans,  if  they 
seized  the  place,  "could  force  us  with  their  fire  in  confusion  over 
the  river  " — the  Garry .^^  He  caused  his  men,  who  now  rose  into 
the  view  of  the  Highlanders,  to  occupy  the  plateau,  "where  we 
got  a  ground  fair  enough  to  receive  the  enemy,  but  not  to  attack 
them,"  as  is  evident  to  all  who  know  the  place.  Dundee  had 
now  occupied  the  steep  hill  above  Urrard,  and  had  another  very 
steep  eminence  at  his  back.  As  at  Flodden,  there  is  a  giant 
staircase  of  three  steps.  Dundee  occupied  the  middle,  Mackay 
the  lowest  step,  with  a  declivity  behind  him ;  below  it  is  the 
haugh,  and  beyond  that  the  Garry.  Mackay,  knowing  the  rapidity 
of  the  Highland  attack,  had  abandoned  the  old  plan  of  sticking  the 
bayonet  into  the  muzzle  of  the  musket,  and  had  invented  a  mode 
of  fixing  bayonets  with  two  rings,  so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the 
discharge  of  the  piece,  yet  be  ready  for  action  against  claymore 
and  target.  Having  marched  his  men  up  the  steep  brae  above 
the  haugh,  Mackay  drew  them  up  three  deep,  with  a  space 
between  each  little  battalion,  and  a  gap  in  his  centre,  where  he 
placed  his  two  troops  of  horse :  they  would  charge  through  the 
interval  when  the  Highlanders  had  delivered  their  volley,  "  which, 
because  they  keep  no  rank  or  file,  doth  ordinarily  little  harm." 

Hastings'  English  regiment,  with  details  from  others,  was  on 
Mackay's  right;  Balfour's  on  his  left,  with  deep  boggy  ground 
between  the  two  wings,  which  seems  a  strange  arrangement,  as 
the  cavalry  was  to  act  in  the  centre.  The  General,  a  brave  man 
but  a  most  entangled  writer,  was  much  sniped  at  by  the  High- 
landers as  he  arrayed  his  little  army.  He  made  a  speech,  in 
one  vast  and  wandering  sentence,  about  what  his  men  owed  to 
the  Protestant  religion  and  to  their  own  safety.^^  On  Mackay's 
left  was  a  house,  probably  that  of  Urrard  ;  there  were  also  cottages. 
Of  these  Mackay  might  have  made  a  Hougomont,  but  Dundee 
occupied  the  house  with  60  of  Lochiel's  240  men,  who  do  not 
appear  to  have  held  it  long.  Mackay's  force  overlapped  Dundee's 
on  each  wing,  widely  as  the  Viscount  spaced  out  his  clan  battalions. 
On  his  right  were  the  Macleans  (to  which  the  Macdonalds  seem 
to  have  made  no  demur),  then  his  few  Irish,  then  Clanranald  and 
Cilengarry.      In   the  centre  was  his   handful   of  some   40   cavalry, 


THE   HIGHLAND   CHARGE.  I9 

very  ill  horsed.  On  their  left  was  Lochiel,  facing  Mackay,  and 
enfiladed  by  Leven's  battalion,^^  while  the  Macdonalds  of  Sleat 
were  on  the  extreme  left. 

A  musketry  duel  was  now  engaged  in  :  Mackay's  leathern  guns 
made  plenty  of  noise,  while  the  clans  set  up  a  shout  more  cheer- 
ful than  that  of  the  enemy.  From  this  the  second-sighted  Lochiel, 
at  once  the  medicine  man  and  the  chief  of  his  clan,  drew  a 
favourable  omen.  Dundee  now  moved  as  if  to  outflank  Mackay 
and  cut  him  off  from  the  Pass  of  Killiecrankie,  by  which  he  ex- 
pected reinforcements  and  supplies  from  Perth.  It  is  stated  by 
the  author  of  the  '  Memoirs  of  Lochiel '  that  the  left  wing,  Sleat's 
Macdonalds,  were  posted  by  the  chief  among  cottages  and  garden 
walls,  as  cover  during  the  musketry  duel,  and  that,  in  the  general 
attack,  the  aide-de-camp  did  not  carry  to  them  their  orders,  while 
they  were  delayed  by  the  nature  of  their  position.  Hour  after 
hour  went  by,  Dundee  was  waiting  till  the  sun  sank, — at  this  time 
it  was  blazing  in  the  eyes  of  the  clans.  Mackay  says  that  his 
brother  now  drove  Dundee's  skirmishers  out  of  some  houses 
which  must  have  been  cotters'  hovels  clustered  about  Urrard. 

As  the  sun  was  touching  the  western  line  of  hills,  Dundee 
gave  the  word  to  charge :  the  Macdonalds  and,  according  to 
Mackay,  Dundee's  handful  of  horse  came  down  on  Hastings, 
fired  their  volley,  and  rushed  among  the  troops  with  the  sword. 
If  this  be  so,  the  right  and  centre  behaved  gallantly;  indeed, 
through  the  mist  of  Mackay's  confused  verbiage  we  see  one  thing, 
that  his  infantry  gave  way  all  along  the  line,  "was  just  plying  over 
all,  though  sooner  upon  the  left,  which  was  not  attacked  at  all, 
than  to  the  right,  because  the  right  of  the  enemy  "  (the  Macleans) 
"had  not  budged  from  their  ground  when  their  left  was  engaged." ^"^ 
The  Lochiel  writer  says  the  very  reverse, — it  was  Dundee's  left, 
the  Macdonalds  of  Sleat,  who  charged  last,  though  then  "  they 
cut  off  the  regiment  which  was  assigned  to  them."  In  any  case, 
the  Highlanders,  though  with  heavy  loss,  carried  Mackay's  men 
with  them  in  their  rush,  slaying  on  every  hand,  and  hurling  them 
down  the  narrow  Pass  above  the  roaring  Garry.  But  half  of 
Hastings'  regiment,  on  Mackay's  extreme  right,  having  been 
attacked  by  no  enemy,  stood  firm,  as  did  Leven's,  which  had 
enfiladed  the  Camerons. 

Sixteen  of  Dundee's  horse,  returning  from  the  pursuit,  found 
these  brave  regiments    on    the  field,   but   could   gather    no   force 


20  DEATH   OF  DUNDEE. 

which  would  assail  them.  On  the  field,  too,  lay  Dundee,  still 
breathing ;  a  bullet  had  pierced  his  armour  on  the  lower  part  of  his 
left  side.*^  Where  Dundee  was  really  hit  is  uncertain.*"^  Mackay's 
officers  examined  his  body  later,  and  report  that  the  bullet  struck 
him  in  the  left  eye.  If  so,  could  he  retain  consciousness  and 
speak  his  last  reported  words?  As  the  gentlemen  stood  by  their 
dying  leader,  Leven's  regiment  scattered  them  by  its  fire,  and 
mortally  wounded  Haliburton  of  Pitcur,  the  tallest  man  of  the 
army.  The  English  infantry,  or  part  of  it,  now  occupied  "  a 
gentleman's  house,"  Urrard,  and  could  then  not  be  dislodged. 

Two  different  accounts  are  given  of  the  manner  in  which  Dundee 
met  his  death.  He  certainly  rode  first  of  his  cavalry,  disappeared 
into  the  smoke,  and  was  then  seen  to  rise  in  his  stirrup  and 
wave  his  men  on.  But  Mackay  says  that  the  Jacobite  horse 
charged  with  the  Highland  left,  the  Macdonalds  of  Sleat ;  while 
the  Lochiel  writer  says  that  Dundee,  in  the  centre,  was  not  with- 
in sight  of  his  extreme  left.'*^  Now  Balcarres,  in  his  report  to 
James,  represents  Dundee  as  falling  in  the  attempt  to  induce  the 
Macdonalds  of  Sleat  to  follow  him.  The  Lochiel  writer,  on  the 
other  hand,  tells  us  that  on  the  morning  of  the  battle  a  certain 
Sir  William  Wallace,  a  kinsman  of  Alelfort,  produced  a  commis- 
sion from  James  superseding  the  Earl  of  Dunfermline,  and  giving 
him  the  command  of  the  cavalry.  In  the  charge,  Wallace,  from 
want  of  courage,  or  some  other  reason  (to  avoid  the  morass?), 
wheeled  off  to  the  left,  and  caused  a  halt  and  confusion. 
Dundee,  who  was  ahead  of  his  men,  did  not  know  that  he  was 
not  being  followed,  till,  perceiving  the  fact,  he  turned  in  his 
saddle  and  waved  on  his  horse.  At  this  moment  he  was  struck 
and  fell,  unperceived  by  Dunfermline  and  sixteen  cavaliers,  who 
routed  the  horse  of  Mackay.  Wallace,  with  the  rest,  "did  not 
appear  until  the  action  was  over  " !  ■** 

This  appears  to  be  the  more  probable  story,  and  is  given  on 
the  authority  of  some  of  Dunfermline's  sixteen. 

Mackay,  as  he  observes,  never  inquired  into  details  of  mis- 
conduct, "  because  they  were  a  little  too  generally  committed." 
'*  In  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,"  his  left,  and  the  enemy,  "  were 
out  of  sight."  He  collected  Hastings'  and  Leven's  men,  and, 
"  marching  off  very  softly,"  crossed  the  Garry,  where  it  is  fordable, 
under  Urrard,  and  at  last  made  for  Strath-Tay,  by  way  of  Castle 
Drummond,  retreating  to  Stirling.     The  Atlioll  men  accounted  for 


THE   GREAT   DUNDEE.  21 

fugitives  down  the  Pass  who  escaped  from  the  clans,  and  if  the 
Highlanders  lost  six  men  on  the  field  to  Mackay's  one  (as  Mackay 
declares),  the  proportions  of  losses  were  altered  in  the  pursuit. 
The  clans  appear  to  have  lost  about  600  out  of  2000  engaged. 
The  Lochiel  author  says  that  the  fighting  men  chased  till  they 
could  not  see  friend  from  foe  in  the  darkness,  and  that  they  did 
not,  as  some  report,  delay  to  spoil  Mackay's  baggage,  which  they 
never  set  eyes  on  till  late  in  the  following  morning. 

To  the  Whigs  in  Edinburgh  the  first  rumours  brought  keen 
anxiety.  They  expected  Dundee  to  be  in  Stirling  immediately, 
and  Scotland  to  be  his  own.  But  the  later  news  of  the  Viscount's 
fall  turned  their  mourning  into  joy.  There  is  good  evidence  that 
a  Mr  Johnstone  heard  the  words  of  Dundee  when  he  fell.  "  How 
went  the  day?"  he  asked.  "Well  for  the  king,  but  I  am  sorry 
for  your  lordship."  "It  is  the  less  matter  for  me,  seeing  the  day 
went  well  for  my  master."*^  The  great  soldier  who  died  for  a 
master  so  miserable  sleeps  in  the  old  church  of  Blair.  He  had 
given  his  "  day  of  shearing  darg "  to  the  king,  happy  in  the 
opportunity  of  his  death.  Not  even  he  could  restore  that  prince 
who  from  a  brave  and  beautiful  lad  had  sunk,  under  religious 
bigotry  and  the  licence  of  Court  life,  to  be  a  false  poltroon,  on 
whose  word  no  man  could  rely,  in  whose  mercy  none  dared  trust. 
We  quit  the  great  Dundee  with  the  words  put  into  his  mouth  by 
Sir  Walter  Scott  *  ('  Old  Mortality ') :  "  The  memory  which  the 
soldier  leaves  behind  him,  like  the  long  train  of  light  that  follows 
the  sunken  sun,  that  is  worth  caring  for.  .  .  ."  He  has  no 
monument  raised  by  men's  hands,  but  his  memory  keeps  her 
dwelling  in  the  light  of  setting  suns  on  the  hills  of  AthoU. 

The  death  of  the  great  Dundee,  in  the  view  of  both  parties, 
implied  the  ruin  of  the  Cause.  "The  next  morning  the  Highland 
army  had  more  the  air  of  the  shattered  remains  of  broken  troops 
than  of  conquerors."     The   one   man  who  could   act   the  part   of 

*  As  to  Dundee's  alleged  letter  to  James,  dictated  after  his  wound,  Professor 
Terry  (Appendix  III.)  gives  a  full  acount  of  the  problem.  The  letter  is  not,  of 
course,  a  forgery  by  Macpherson  (i.  372).  A  form  of  it  exists  in  a  contemporary 
printed  broadside,  but  I  differ  from  Professor  Terry  as  to  the  relative  orii^inality  of 
the  broadside  and  of  tlie  manuscript  among  the  Carte  Papers  in  the  Bodleian 
Library.  The  MS.,  to  myself,  seems  the  prior  composition,  and  is  written, 
though  the  variations  are  slight,  more  in  the  spirit  of  Dundee,  It  seems  im- 
possible that  Dundee  dictated  the  letter,  and  yet  not  very  easy  to  believe  that  any 
forger  could  catch  his  tone  and  spirit  so  successfully. 


22  MACKAY   AND   CANNON. 

Montrose,  who  could  control  the  clans,  with  the  unfailing  aid 
of  the  wise  and  venerated  Lochiel,  was  gone.  "That  melancholy 
army"  was  commanded  by  General  Cannon,  an  ordinary  person, 
without  sympathy  or  imagination.  In  vain  fresh  clans  joined  his 
forces — Glencoe,  500  Camerons,  the  Stewarts  of  Appin,  the  Stewarts 
of  AthoU.  In  the  braes  of  Mar  they  picked  up  Gordons,  Far- 
quharsons,  Forbeses,  till  they  numbered  5000  men,  lions  led  by 
a  sheep.  The  cavaliers  of  the  South,  broken  reeds,  sons  of  the 
men  who  failed  Montrose,  "were  ready,"  so  they  said,  but  vainly 
waited  for  Cannon. 

Mackay,  combating  the  timidity  of  the  Parliamenteers,  who 
would  have  abandoned  the  North,  concentrated  at  Stirling.  He 
was  indisposed  to  use  the  godly  of  the  West,  "  whose  pretensions 
appeared  already  exorbitant  enough,"  but  he  had  the  regular 
Cameronian  Regiment,  of  which  the  Earl  of  Angus  was  colonel.^'' 
This  was  fortunate  for  the  Government.  Mackay  marched  promptly 
on  Perth,  crossed  Tippermuir,  the  scene  of  Montrose's  first  victory, 
and  cut  up  a  party  of  Cannon's  Atholl  men  who  were  foraging. 
He  now  moved  on  Aberdeen,  while  Cannon,  in  place  of  descend- 
ing on  the  Lowlands,  was  marching  about  the  Braes  of  Mar,  his 
men  discouraged  by  the  discovery  at  Perth  that  they  were  not 
invincible  and  were  not  capable  always  of  resisting  cavalry.  On 
August  17  the  Cameronians  occupied  Dunkeld,  on  the  Tay, 
against  which  Cannon  was  moving  with  his  whole  force.  But 
already  the  chiefs  were  irritated  by  the  predominance  foolishly 
assigned  to  the  Lowland  officers,  the  error  which  Dundee  had 
avoided,  and  by  the  dilatory  proceedings  of  Cannon  in  Aberdeen- 
shire. Lochiel  withdrew,  Sleat  withdrew,  the  army  of  Cannon  was 
depleted.  But  the  Cameronians  were  known  to  have  been  left 
without  supports  in  Dunkeld,  among  people  who  hated  them,  and 
whom  they,  remembering  the  ravages  of  "the  Highland  Host," 
equally  detested.  Cannon  had  a  skirmish  with  Lanier  near 
Brechin,  and  then,  hearing  of  the  isolated  position  of  the 
Cameronians,  he  retired  to  the  hills  and  prepared  to  cut  them 
off.  At  Coupar- Angus,  within  ten  miles  of  Dunkeld,  Lanier 
heard  of  the  peril  of  the  Cameronians.  Three  troops  of  dragoons 
had  been  sent  by  Ramsay  to  reinforce  them,  but  they  retired,  in 
the  face  of  the  clans,  despite  the  vigorous  remonstrances  of 
Lieutenant  -  Colonel  Cleland.  The  pretext  for  the  withdrawal  of 
the  cavalry   was  an   order  of  Council,  and,   according   to   Sheild, 


CAMERONIAN    VICTORY   AT   DUNKELD.  23 

"the  most  part  of  people  did  say  that  they"  (the  Cameronians) 
"were  betrayed,  in  which  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  was  blamed  as 
having  a  chief  hand."''^ 

The  idea,  though  absurd,  may  have  occurred  to  the  Cameronians 
themselves,  when  deserted  by  the  horse  and  exposed  in  an  open 
town  to  the  victors  of  Killiecrankie, — who  were  no  longer  5000 
men,  but  greatly  outnumbered  the  new  regiment.  But  their 
commander,  Cleland,  who  had  seen  the  back  of  Claverhouse 
at  Drumclog,  was  a  man  of  dauntless  resolution.  He  strengthened 
and  occupied  with  outposts  the  walls  and  enclosures,  and  made 
his  principal  point  of  resistance  the  church,  and  AthoU's  town 
house.  On  August  21,  about  seven  in  the  morning,  the  High- 
landers attacked,  driving  in  the  outposts,  carrying  wall  after  wall, 
the  Macleans  foremost.  The  castle,  as  AthoU's  house  is  called, 
and  the  old  Abbey  church,  were  then  assailed.  The  gallant 
Cleland  fell  while  encouraging  his  troops ;  the  Major,  Henderson, 
was  mortally  wounded.  Monro  took  command,  and  ammunition 
was  so  scarce  that  lead  was  stripped  from  the  roofs  and  cast  into 
bullets  during  the  fray.  Macaulay  describes  the  Highlanders 
as  occupying  the  houses  and  "  keeping  up  a  galling  fire  from 
the  windows."  The  Lochiel  narrator  says  the  reverse, — the  High- 
landers stood  exposed  in  the  streets,  "and  killed  them  in  the 
windows."  Cannon  had  no  balls  for  his  artillery,  and  the  church 
and  castle  had  to  be  taken,  if  at  all,  by  a  coup  de  main.  The 
Cameronians,  also  in  lack  of  ammunition,  were,  says  the  Lochiel 
writer,  on  the  very  point  of  surrendering  when  Cannon,  "even 
against  his  men's  inclinations,  commanded  them  to  retire."  ^^ 
The  town  was  on  fire,  the  Cameronians  are  said  to  have  locked 
Highlanders  up  in  the  blazing  houses,  but  a  lock  would  not  keep 
a  door  fast  against  Highland  shoulders. 

It  was  a  question  of  "  who  will  pound  longest."  The  brave 
Cameronians  pounded  longest,  but  we  may  doubt  whether  Mackay, 
and  of  course  Macaulay,  are  right  in  attributing  want  of  tenacity 
to  the  clans.  At  Ticonderoga  the  recall  had  to  be  sounded 
several  times  before  the  Highlanders  could  be  dragged  from  the 
impenetrable  abattis  of  the  French.  Mackay  himself  avers  that 
the  Highlanders  "  got  a  low  esteem  of  the  conduct  of  Cannon," 
a  thing  not  to  be  marvelled  at.^*^  He  states  the  Highland  loss 
at  less  than  twenty  men,  as  does  the  Lochiel  narrator,  who  declares 
that,   under  cover,  the  Cameronians  feared  to  expose  themselves 


24  DUNKELD. 

while  aiming.  "Cannon  never  could  bring  them  to  it  the  second 
time,"  says  Mackay.  The  author  of  'The  Historical  Record  of 
the  Twenty-sixth  or  Cameronian  Regiment,'  on  the  other  hand, 
puts  the  Highland  losses  at  300,  and  those  of  the  Cameronians  at 
52  out  of  800,  whereas  the  Lochiel  narrator  states  them  at  300. 
Doubtless  great  courage  was  shown  on  both  sides,  for  the 
Cameronians  were  raw  recruits  who  had  never  seen  fire,  and 
were  vastly  outnumbered,  but  they  fought  well  under  the  shelter 
of  strong  walls,  which,  if  artillery  is  not  used,  ought  to  ensure 
success.  In  any  case  this  resistance  was  decisive.  The  effect 
of  Killiecrankie  was  obliterated,  Blair  Atholl  Castle  was  occupied 
by  Mackay  without  opposition,  the  clans  disbanded  and  went 
home  cursing  Cannon,  and  Mackay  cantoned  his  troops  near 
Perth.  Had  Dundee  lived,  all  the  North  would  have  been  over 
the  Forth,  and  Dalrymple  says  that  the  old  Puritan  shire  of  Fife 
was  not  to  be  trusted.  But  the  death  of  Dundee,  the  tenacity 
of  the  Cameronians,  the  imbecility  of  Cannon,  and  the  courage 
and  conduct  of  Mackay,  had  saved  the  bungling  Government, 
which  now  returned  to  its  political  tasks  and  difficulties. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER    I. 

'  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  1689-1691  :  1843. 
2  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  68. 
*'  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.     Appendix,  123. 
■*  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.     Appendix,  128. 
"  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.     Appendix,  132. 

*  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  151. 
'  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  166. 
'  Leven  and  Melville  I'apers,  p.  170. 

*  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  193. 

'"  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  182,  185. 

''  Leven  and  Melville  I'apers,  p.  190. 

'-  The  History  of  the  Affaires  of  Scotland,  pp.  137-1S9:  London,  1690. 

"  The  authorities  are  Mackay's  Memoirs  of  the  War,  &c.,  1689-1691  :  Edin- 
burgh,  1833.  Memoirs  of  Sir  Ewcn  Cameron  of  Lochiel  (Maitland  Club,  1S42). 
Viscount  Dundee's  Letters  (Bannatyne  Cluh,  1826).  The  Grxmeid :  An  Heroic 
Poem,  by  James  Philip  of  Almcrie  close,  1691,  edited  by  the  Rev.  A.  D.  Murdoch 
(Scottish  History  Society,  1888).  Palcarres's  Memoirs,  184I  (Bannatyne  Club). 
Act.  Pari.  Scot.,    1689-1695.     Macpiierson's  Original  Pajicrs,  vol.  i.,    1775:  in- 


NOTES.  25 

eludes  copies  of  Nairne  MSS.  Napier's  Memoirs  of  Dundee,  vol.  iii.,  1862. 
Mackay  is  perhaps  the  least  lucid  of  military  writers,  and  revels  in  a  plentiful 
lack  of  dates.  The  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  very  pleasantly  written,  are  attributed  to 
Macgregor  of  Balhaldie,  who  brought  Prince  Charles  from  Rome  to  France  in 
1744.*  The  Grremeid,  by  a  companion  of  Dundee  in  the  campaign,  is  a  florid 
Latin  epic,  well  annotated  by  Mr  Murdoch.  Browne's  History  of  the  Highland 
Clans  (1838).  The  Despot's  Champion  (1889),  and  other  modern  works,  deal 
with  the  campaign.  Professor  Sandford  Terry's  Life  of  Dundee  (1905)  has  also 
been  consulted. 

"  Macaulay,  iii.  63  :  1S60. 

^^  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  237. 

"  Dundee's  own  account.     Macpherson,  i.  353. 

"  The  Grsemcid,  p.  iii. 

^8  Mackay,  p.  25. 

18  Mackay,  p.  35. 

2"  Cf.  Letters  of  Viscount  Dundee,  p.  60. 

21  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  242. 

22  Mackay,  p.  36. 

^  Mackay,  pp.  38,  39;  Dundee,  p.  61  ;  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  245. 
-•*  The  Grcemeid,  p.  211,  note  3. 

25  The  Grremeid,  p.  216. 

26  Mackay,  pp.  44,  45,  46, 

^  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  pp.  242,  243  ;  The  Grsemeid,  p.  180, 

28  MacSweeny's  Report,  Letters  of  Dundee,  p.  63. 

'■^  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  pp.  24,  25. 

■^''  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  pp.  250,  255. 

^'  Letters  of  Viscount  Dundee,  pp.  64,  71. 

'^'^  Mackay,  pp.  46,  47. 

•*•*  Letters  of  Viscount  Dundee,  pp.  7l-79» 

^■*  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  255. 

^5  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  258. 

36  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  pp.  258,  264. 

^  Mackay,  p.  51. 

38  Mackay,  pp.  52,  54. 

39  King's  Own  Scottish  Borderers. 
^  Mackay,  p.  56. 

^  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  269. 

^  See  Terry,  Appendix  ii. 

■^  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  273. 

■"  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  p.  268. 

■*5  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.     Appendix,  p.  56. 

^  Mackay,  p.  63. 

*'  Faithful  Contendings,  p.  413. 

*8  Memoirs  of  Lochiel,  pp.  2S6,  288. 

■*^  Mackay,  p.  70.  

*  John  Macgregor,  son  of  a  daughter  of  Lochiel  (History  of  the  Clan  Gregor, 
ii.  294.     1901). 


26 


CHAPTER    II. 

PARLIAMENTARY   AND    ECCLESIASTICAL    SETTLEMENT. 
MASSACRE    OF    GLENCOE. 

1689. 

Every  vice  of  treachery  and  greed  which  Thucydides  ascribes  to 
the  influence  of  Revolution  was  now  displayed  by  the  prominent 
politicians  of  Scotland.  The  desires  of  the  Club  might,  in  them- 
selves, be  even  applauded.  They  professed  to  wish  for  modern 
constitutional  Government,  not  ignobly,  if  prematurely,  and  they 
won  it  for  a  few  years.  But  the  private  designs  of  several  of  their 
leaders  were  mere  self-seeking,  notably  in  the  case  of  Skelmorley, 
as  Sir  James  Montgomery  is  usually  styled.  By  a  reversal  to  the 
methods  of  Charles  II.,  William,  as  soon  as  Parliament  adjourned, 
issued  a  proclamation,  forbidding  the  lieges  to  leave  Scotland  and 
go  with  their  grievances  to  the  new  king.  Ross,  Annandale,  and 
Polwarth,  "  the  heads  of  the  Mobile,"  that  is,  of  the  mob,^  were  re- 
calcitrant. They  agitated  in  the  country,  framing  an  address  which 
was  signed  by  most  of  the  barons  and  burghs, — the  Provost  of 
Aberdeen  signed  when  he  was  drunk.  They  tried  to  bring  the 
Westland  Whigs  to  Edinburgh,  by  way  of  a  "  demonstration,"  and 
the  Cameronian  regiment,  three  weeks  before  its  gallant  stand  at 
Dunkeld,  mutinied  for  pay.^  Polwarth  told  Lockhart  that  matters 
would  never  mend  in  Scotland  till  it  came  to  throat-cutting.  They 
desired  a  Republic,  in  Lockhart's  opinion  :  place,  and  revenge  on 
the  detested  Dalrymples,  was  what  they  really  desired.  By  Sept- 
ember, multitudes  of  all  parties  had  flocked  to  Court  to  bewilder 
the  king.  The  egregious  Crawford  outdid  the  preachers  and 
prophets  in  the  quoting  of  texts.  "  I  dare  not  question  but  that 
God  hath  begun  to  put  His  feet  in  our  waters,  and  that  He  will  not 


INTRIGUES   OF   THE   CLUB   (1690).  2/ 

draw  in  His  arm,  which  He  hath  bared,  until  He  make  His  enemies 
His  footstool,  .  ,  .  that  He  will  find  out  carpenters  to  fray  all  these 
horns  which  push  at  His  ark,  and  that  in  due  time  He  will  level 
all  these  mountains  that  are  in  Zerubbabel's  way."  ^ 

Meanwhile  he  was  evicting  many  scores  of  conformist  ministers 
on  the  information  of  their  parishioners,  which  caused  sympathy 
and  excitement  in  the  breasts  of  English  Churchmen.  The  evicted 
said  that  they  were  punished  for  being  Episcopal ;  the  other  party 
averred  that  they  suffered  for  purely  political  causes, — they  would 
not  pray  for  the  new  king  and  queen.  The  lists  of  the  expelled 
show  that  Episcopal  conformity  was  strong  in  St  Andrews,  in  Fife, 
and  in  Teviotdale.  A  Cockburn  at  Ormiston  did  not  match  the 
Presbyterian  ardour  of  his  ancestors  at  the  Reformation,  Dundee 
and  Perth  ministers  were  conformist :  they  had  preached  with  joy 
on  Dundee's  fatal  victory,  were  tried,  and  were  acquitted,  which  is 
curious."*  There  was  nearly  as  clean  a  sweep  made  of  conformists 
now  as  in  1638,  as  great  an  extrusion  as  of  Presbyterians  under  the 
Restoration.  The  most  marked  results  of  these  troubles  were, 
perhaps,  the  pamphlet  styled  'Scots  Presbyterian  Eloquence,'  the 
replies  to  that,  and  a  crowd  of  other  tracts.  The  defenders  of  the 
Kirk  argued  that  Sheild's  notorious  works  were  as  anti-Presbyterian 
as  anti-Episcopalian :  Sheild  represented,  of  course,  the  extreme 
left  wing,  semi-detached,  of  the  Presbyterians.  " '  The  Hind  let 
Loose'  was  never  the  standard  of  our  principles,  nor  approved  by 
our  party,"  says  the  Kirk's  defender.^ 

These  paper  bullets  of  the  brain  flew  about  in  a  later  strife. 
Meanwhile  Crawford  and  his  party  were  sorely  exercised  by  fears 
that  William,  moved  by  Burnet,  now  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  would 
be  too  lenient  to  Episcopalians."  In  September,  Polwarth  carried 
to  Court  the  Address  manufactured  by  the  Club.'^  Polwarth  was 
to  return  to  Scotland  in  a  milder  mood ;  not  so  Ross,  Annandale, 
and  Montgomery.  A  Vindication  of  the  Address  was  written  by 
Fergusson  the  Plotter,  who,  merely  for  love  of  plotting,  it  seems, 
had  turned  the  coat  he  wore  under  Monmouth  and  sided  with  the 
Jacobites.  This  pamphlet  was  excessively  vexatious  to  William, 
and  Annandale,  Ross,  and  Sir  James  Montgomery  saw  that  they 
had  hopelessly  lost  the  Royal  favour.  In  August  1690  Annandale 
betrayed  his  associates,  and  his  confession  tells  the  story  of  their 
doings  during  the  adjournment  of  the  Estates.  Montgomery  pro- 
posed, he  said,  that  they  should  apply  to  their  rightful  king  over 


28  INTRIGUES  OF  ANNANDALE  (1690). 

the  water,  "who,  no  doubt,  would  give  us  what  preferments  and 
employments  we  pleased," — a  very  appropriate  argument.  Mont- 
gomery drew  up  a  Commission  for  Annandale  himself  as  Royal 
Commissioner  to  a  Parliament  under  James,  with  fantastic  instruc- 
tions ;  and  they  plotted  with  Nevile  Payne,  one  Simpson,  and 
"Williamson,  to  have  these  papers  conveyed  to  James  for  signature. 
Simpson  was  a  double  spy,  employed  by  Bentinck  (Earl  of  Port- 
land) for  William,  and  he  came  and  went  with  information  from 
both  parties  to  their  enemies.  Montgomery's  brother  betrayed 
Montgomery's  intrigue  to  Burnet,  and  Williamson  was  seized  at 
Dover.  This  may  have  been  a  blind  to  secure  the  safe  departure 
of  Simpson,  who  carried  the  papers  for  James  to  France,  while 
nothing  was  found  on  Williamson.  At  all  events,  thus  matters 
turned  out,  and  the  younger  Montgomery  was  reconciled  to  the 
Church  and  is  out  of  the  story.  James  took  the  bait  of  the  con- 
spirators, very  foolishly ;  Burnet  was  laughed  at ;  and  stories  of 
Jacobite  plots  were  ridiculed.^ 

Annandale  and  Montgomery  then  returned  to  Scotland,  hoping 
to  blend  all  the  discontented  into  a  majority  against  William.  Ob- 
struction and  a  forced  dissolution  was  their  plan,  and  as  William 
again  and  again  adjourned  Parliament,  the  discontents  increased. 
But  though  details  were  still  unknown,  the  general  lines  of  the  plot 
did  not  escape  the  Presbyterians,  who  could  trust  nobody  much, 
but  trusted  Melville,  who  in  1690  succeeded  Hamilton  as  Com- 
missioner, more  than  they  relied  on  Montgomery  ^  and  King  James. 
Among  the  Articles  signed  by  James  was  an  exception  of  Burnet, 
Melville,  Mackay,  Sir  John  Dalrymple,  and  two  others,  from  a 
general  amnesty.  Atholl,  Arran,  Breadalbane,  Balcarres,  and  other 
gentlemen  were  "  peached  "  by  Annandale  as  cognisant  of  his  con- 
spiracy, but  "all  of  them  did  exceedingly  blame  us,"  he  says,  "for 
thinking  that  it  was  possible  to  do  King  James's  business  in  a  Par- 
liamentary way," — the  natural  mistake  of  such  constitutional  zealots. 
To  have  kidnapped  William  would  have  been  far  more  romantic 
and  quite  as  feasible.  Yet  we  must,  in  fairness,  confess  that  these 
intriguers  were  in  advance  of  their  age,  and  recognised  the  beauties 
of  Parliamentary  obstruction  as  a  means  of  obtaining  office. 

The  leaders  of  the  Club,  when  they  met  at  Edinburgh  in  January 
1690,  made  a  volte-face,  and  took  up  the  cause  of  tlie  expelled  and 
impovcrislicd  Episcopalians."^  Montgomery  went  to  Hamilton,  to 
the  Duke,  hoping,  no  doubt,  to  win  that  waverer.     The  representa. 


POLWARTII   DESERTS   THE   CLUB   (1690).  29 

lives  of  Government  placed  all  their  hopes  on  a  visit  of  William  to 
Scotland,  and  on  a  "  half-dress  "  coronation,  as  nobody  could  afford 
full-dress  robes.  But  William  was  no  more  crowned  at  Scone  than 
James  had  been.  The  English  Parliament  was  about  to  sit,  and  the 
Dutch  monarch  never  found  time  to  visit  his  kingdom  of  Scotland. 
The  Club  gave  out  that  Parliament  would  never  meet ;  but  William, 
in  fact,  was  determined  that  the  Scottish  House  should  not  sit  while 
the  English  Parliament  was  sitting,  for  sympathy  would  be  excited 
at  Westminster  with  the  Scottish  Episcopalians.  Hamilton  was 
suspected  of  treating  with  the  wild  western  Whigs,  because  he 
engaged  some  Cameronian  gardeners  ! 

The  Government,  reckoning  up  votes  in  February,  thought  them- 
selves almost  secure  of  a  small  majority,  in  which  they  were  not 
to  be  disappointed,  for  Polwarth  had  deserted  the  Club  and,  in 
February,  was  corresponding  with  the  king.  "The  Club  is  now 
broken  to  pieces,"  wrote  Dalrymple.  On  February  25  William  gave 
his  instructions  to  Melville  as  Commissioner,  He  was  to  "  touch  " 
and  pass  the  Acts  of  1689  for  restoring  Presbyterian  preachers 
to  their  kirks.  He  was  to  abolish  Patronage,  which  was  against 
William's  wishes,  as  an  interference  with  men's  property.  He 
was  to  settle  the  question  of  Church  Government.^^  A  beginning 
was  made  of  Breadalbane's  plan  to  buy  up  the  clans.  William 
showed  clearly  his  desire  that  General  Assemblies  should  be  con- 
voked by  the  authority  of  the  State,  not  called  together  by  the 
preachers  whenever  they  wished  to  agitate.^^ 

Meanwhile  Montgomery  was  working  at  the  impossible  task  of 
uniting  the  Jacobites  and  the  constitutional  extremists  on  the  basis 
of  hatred  of  Melville,  of  the  Dalrymples,  and  of  the  nominations 
of  judges  in  the  Court  of  Session.  He  would  have  a  Habeas 
Corpus  Act,  and  freedom  of  speech  in  Parliament,  which  do  not 
read  like  violent  demands.  He  was  also  for  abolishing  the  Royal 
Supremacy  and  restoring  the  Kirk  as  in  her  palmiest  days,  the 
notion  being  that,  if  William  would  not  make,  James  would 
promise,  these  concessions.  Supplies  would  be  refused,  the  army 
would  disband,  and  the  clans  would  come  down  on  the  country. 
The  Jacobites  had  scruples  about  taking  the  parliamentary  oaths ; 
but  some  did  risk  their  souls,  others  kept  out  of  the  way.  The 
Government  created  six  votes — in  an  ingenious  way  :  they  spent 
the  secret  service  money  granted  by  William  for  that  purpose, 
and    they    met    Parliament.       Crawford    made    a    speech    about 


30  LORDS  OF  ARTICLES  ABOLISHED  (1690). 

Nehemiah  and  Ezra,  and  the  first  contest  was  over  a  disputed 
election.  The  six  votes  made  "  by  dividing  the  office  of  Clerk 
Register  into  six"  just  furnished  a  majority  of  that  number. 
Several  Jacobites  stood  aloof,  others  joined  the  party  which  had 
the  majority,  the  rest  "made  a  miserable  figure"  as  they  listened 
to  Dalrymple  and  Montgomery  "  scolding  hke  watermen."  Mont- 
gomery was  for  none  of  a  Dutch  sort  of  Presbyterianism  "called 
Erastianism,"  but  for  the  Kirk  in  the  glory  of  1648,  and  this 
found  favour,  says  Balcarres.^^ 

The  Supremacy  Act  and  the  Act  restoring  outed  preachers  were 
touched  and  passed  on  April  25.^*  The  Lords  of  the  Articles, 
these  venerable  grievances,  were  abolished  at  last,  and  Parliaments 
were  to  choose  committees  of  equal  numbers  from  each  Estate, 
plus  officers  of  State  who  might  debate,  but  might  not  vote,  unless 
they  were,  by  election,  of  the  Committee  of  the  Lords. ^^  With  a 
sensible  relief  we  say  farewell  to  the  old  Lords  of  the  Articles,  who 
facihtated  the  despatch  of  business,  but  deprived  "plain  Parliament" 
of  the  constitutional  development  which  now  advanced  so  rapidly 
that,  by  1707,  members  of  the  Scots  Parliament  had  little  to  learn 
from  the  House  of  Commons  at  Westminster. 

On  May  26  the  Estates  fixed  the  national  creed.  The  West- 
minster Confession  was  read, — there  it  stands  in  the  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment ;  but  the  Catechisms  were  left  out, — "  the  House  grew  restive 
and  impatient,  and  could  stand  out  no  longer,"  says  a  pamphleteer.^^ 

There  was  now  a  short  adjournment  (May  30  to  June  4).  Dur- 
ing the  interval  Montgomery  received  "a  great  black  box  with 
papers,"  from  James  in  Ireland.  Annandale,  Arran,  Ross,  and 
Montgomery  opened  it,  took  out  some  documents  which  they 
did  not  wish  Balcarres  and  the  genuine  Jacobites  to  see,  sealed  up 
the  envelopes  afresh,  and  summoned  Linlithgow,  Balcarres,  and 
Breadalbane.  Annandale  assured  them  that  the  seals  had  not 
been  tampered  with,  so  it  appeared  strange  that  they  bore  his 
own  seal.  The  Jacobites  and  the  Club  traitors  now  understood 
each  other,  and  "  never  were  men  in  greater  confusion  than  all 
of  us,"  for  the  Jacobites  found  that  the  traitors  had  got  from 
William  all  the  best  that  James  could  promise,  and  that  they 
had  aimed  at  a  constitutional  revolution.  The  Jacobite  com- 
missions were  burned  :  for  the  defeat,  by  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone, 
of  a  small  Highland  force,  surprised  in  their  sleep  at  Cromdale 
Haughs,  on  May  r,  had  already  damped  the  more  romantic  hopes 


THE  CLUB  BETRAY  JACOBITE  SECRETS  (1690).     31 

of  the  friends  of  King  James,  The  imbeciHty  of  the  Jacobites 
as  conspirators  was  thus  made  plain  to  the  world,  and  it  was  left 
to  Annandale,  Montgomery,  and  Ross  to  betray  their  associates 
with  various  circumstances  of  ignominy.  While  the  Kirk,  after 
the  brief  adjournment,  was  being  restored,  shorn  of  the  Covenant 
and  of  civil  penalties  attending  excommunication,  Ross  and  Mont- 
gomery were  trying  to  save  their  heads  by  babbling  to  Melville 
about  their  Jacobite  intrigues.  "What  a  parcel  of  rogues  in  a 
nation  I"^^ 

The  Estates  met  again  to  fix  the  model  of  the  new  Presbyterian 
Establishment.  William  had  communicated  his  ideas  to  Melville. 
The  Act,  as  drafted,  styled  Presbyterial  Government  "the  only 
Government  of  Christ's  Church  in  this  Kingdom."  William  pre- 
ferred "the  Government  of  the  Church  in  this  Kingdom  established 
by  law."  He  asked  for  secure  power  to  his  Privy  Council ;  Synods 
and  General  Assemblies  might  meet  when  they  pleased,  provided 
that  they  first  applied  to  him  or  the  Privy  Council,  "and  have  his 
allowance  accordingly."  A  Royal  Commissioner  should  always  be 
present,  with  power  to  stop  any  roamings  into  matters  "  relating  to 
the  Civil  Government "  :  the  Commissioner  must  refer  these  to  the 
Privy  Council.  William  again  expressed  his  scruples  about  infringing 
rights  of  patronage,  while  declaring  vacant  the  parishes  of  the  rabbled 
ministers.  For  Episcopalians  who  took  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  he 
desired  the  indulgence  extended  to  Dissenters  in  England.^** 

The  Act  as  passed  restored  the  Kirk  as  in  1592.  It  was  to  be 
organised  and  instituted  by  the  survivors  of  the  preachers  outed  in 
1 661;  only  sixty  of  them  ("The  Sixty  Bishops")  still  survived. 
The  benefices  of  the  conformists  outed  before  April  1689  and 
of  those  outed  for  not  obeying  the  proclamation  that  they  should 
pray  for  the  new  king  and  queen  were  declared  vacant.  The 
Sixty,  with  any  helpers  whom  they  might  select,  were  to  do  the 
purging  of  inefficient,  scandalous,  and  erroneous  preachers.^^  All 
this  new  settlement  was  as  Erastian  as  the  decree  of  Parliament 
for  a  Thanksgiving  Day  for  the  battle  of  the  Boyne,  and  for 
monthly  fasts  during  the  king's  absence  in  Ireland.  If  to  ap- 
point holidays,  as  for  August  5  and  May  29,  was  the  sin  of 
Uzziah,  then  sinful  were  the  Parliamentary  feasts  and  fasts.-*' 

On  July  19  an  Act  rescinded  certain  Acts  as  "useless  or  hurtful." 
Among  these  were  '■^All  Acts  enjoining  civil  paifts  upon  sentences  of 
Excommunication"  '^'^    This  was  a  joyful  day.     "The  excommunicat- 


32   THE  KIRK  REORGANISED — TORTURE  OF  PAYNE  (1690). 

ory  fever,"  as  Erastus  called  it,  which  broke  out  under  Knox  in  May 
1559,  was  for  ever  cured  :  the  preachers  might  bind  and  loose  what 
they  would,  or  could,  in  heaven,  but  though  they  might  vex  men 
with  excommunication  of  a  spiritual  sort,  they  could  no  longer 
compel  the  State  to  ruin  them  on  earth.  Nothing  at  all  was 
said  about  the  Covenant,  that  solemn  oath  binding  on  all  gen- 
erations. The  Cameronians  and  various  dissenters  later  might 
renew  it  as  often  as  they  pleased,  but  the  thing  was  practically 
dead. 

The  victory  of  the  Boyne,  the  confessions  of  Ross — who  was 
put  into  the  Tower — and  of  Annandale  (August  31)  who  was 
the  most  explicit  of  these  traitors,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
strong  fortress  at  Inverlochy — where  Colonel  Hill  commanded, 
reduced  the  hopes  of  the  Jacobites.  Ferguson  and  Cochrane 
(of  Argyll's  expedition)  were  taken  in  England,  but  could  not 
be  extradited  to  Scotland  and  tortured,  as  Carstares  had  been, 
and  as  William  desired."  The  pair  were  discharged. ^^  But 
Nevile  Payne,  an  English  playwright  and  conspirator,  had  been 
taken  in  Scotland,  and  was  to  be,  probably,  the  last  victim  of 
judicial  torture  (witches  apart)  in  that  country, — though  it  was 
in  1690  intended  to  torture  one  Mure  or  Ker  for  child  murder.-* 
The  list  of  questions  put  to  Payne  (who  is  said  to  have 
been  a  country  gentleman,  and  is  confused  by  Macaulay  with 
another  Payne,  a  friend  of  Coleman,  who  was  executed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Popish  Plot)  was  drawn  up  in  August.  It  was 
hoped  that  he  would  incriminate  English  accessories  to  Mont- 
gomery's conspiracy  and  throw  light  on  dealings  with  France. 
In  England,  Mary  herself  examined  the  shamefaced  caitiffs,  who 
"  mumbled "  their  avowals.^^  Payne  was  not  tormented  till 
December  10,  "gently,"  and  next  day,  for  two  hours,  "with  all 
the  severity  that  was  consistent  with  humanity,"  says  the  Bible- 
loving  Crawford,  who  could  only  suppose  that  the  victim  was 
sustained  by  his  religion — Catholic.  "My  stomach  is  truly  so 
far  out  of  tune  by  being  a  witness  to  an  act  so  far  cross  to  my 
natural  temper,  that  I  am  fitter  for  rest  than  anything  else,"  wrote 
Crawford.  Several  of  the  Council  objected  to  the  cruelty,  and  with- 
drew. Payne  was  never  proved  guilty,  but  was  kept  a  prisoner  to 
the  end  of  his  days,  some  ten  years  later. 2**  He  had  been  thought  a 
coward  by  Lockhart :  he  proved  himself  to  be  no  less  courageous 
than  Mitchell  and  Mackail  of  the  Covenanting  party. 


A   QUIET   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY   (1690).  33 

The  Government,  when  the  Estates  rose,  looked  forward  nervously 
to  "  losing  in  the  General  Assembly  of  October  what  they  had 
gained  in  Parliament."  ^^  Lord  Carmichael,  a  man  of  sense,  was 
to  be  Royal  Commissioner.  Hints  were  given  to  the  Assembly 
that  their  sitting  should  be  brief.  Melville  warned  Kirkton,  the 
historian  of  the  sufferings,  that  moderation  was  indispensable,  and 
he  appealed  in  the  same  sense  to  Gilbert  Rule,  Fraser  of  Brae, 
and  "  Dainty  Davy,"  Mr  David  Williamson,  famous  in  song  for  an 
adventure  in  which  his  alleged  presence  of  mind,  when  in  hiding 
from  the  dragoons,  extorted  the  applause  of  Charles  II.  If  the  new 
Assembly  played  the  old  game  of  resistance  to  the  State,  the  Church 
party  in  the  English  Parliament  might,  by  way  of  reprisals,  refuse 
supply. 28  The  king  himself,  in  a  letter  to  the  Assembly,  insisted 
that  they  should  be  moderate. 

At  this  period  the  long  strain  of  persecution  by  the  two  last 
Stuart  kings  had  done  its  work.  The  old  irreconcilable  temper 
was  broken ;  the  old  impossible  claims  of  the  Covenant  were 
dropped.  Crawford  had  spoken  about  Nehemiah,  and  Ezra,  and 
the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  but  this  rebuilding  did  not  match 
that  of  1638.  Among  the  "outed"  survivors  of  1661,  the  remnant 
of  the  former  generation,  were  Protestors  who  had  warred  with 
Resolutioners,  Resolutioners  who  had  wrangled  with  Protestors. 
Gaunt  and  grey  they  met,  and  there  was  a  moment  when  it  seemed 
as  if  they  would  renew  their  ancient  bickerings,  but  time  had  tamed 
them,  and  common-sense  was  heard.  Now  there  was  present  in 
the  Assembly  no  crowd  of  enthusiastic  rufifians,  such  as  Baillie  de- 
scribes in  1638,  come  to  behold  and  applaud  the  fall  of  the  pre- 
latical  Jericho.  The  brethren  kept  out  all  who  were  not  of  their 
own  party,  however,  "forbidding  the  keepers  of  the  doors  to  admit 
any  without  a  leaden  ticket  in  the  shape  of  a  heart."  Not  now 
was  the  Royal  Commissioner  (like  Hamilton  in  1638)  in  fear  for 
his  liberty  and  even  of  his  life.  The  Commissioner,  and  Kennedy 
the  Moderator,  did  not  quarrel  about  the  Kirk's  right  or  the  king's 
right  to  appoint  times  of  meeting.  They  agreed,  apparently,  on 
the  momentous  dates  in  private ;  Carmichael  then  appointed  the 
time,  and  Kennedy,  "without  taking  notice  of  what  the  Com- 
missioner had  done,  himself  adjourned  them  to  the  same  time," 
as  is  still  the  practice.  One  day  when  Cunningham  was  acting 
as  Moderator  he  asked  the  Commissioner  what  the  next  day  of 
meeting  should  be,  and  then  "corrected   himself  in   his  prayer." 

VOL.  IV.  c 


34  CAMERONIANS   AND   ASSEMBLY  (1690). 

After  acknowledging  the  Founder  of  Christianity  as  the  Supreme 
Head  and  Governor  of  the  Church,  he  is  said  to  have  added, 
"  Thou  knowest,  O  Lord,  that  when  we  own  any  other  it  is  only 
for  Decency's  sake."^^ 

Carstares — "Cardinal  Carstares,"  as  he  was  called — had  come 
down  from  London.  William's  Scottish  adviser — a  man  both  wise 
and  pawky, — he  kept  all  in  fair  order,  while  allowing  scandalous 
and  inefificient  and  erroneous  Episcopalians  to  be  tried  and  de- 
prived on  what  they  declared  to  be  trivial  charges  and  tainted 
evidence.  The  party  in  power  were  more  anxious  to  empty 
Episcopal  pulpits  than  careful  about  how  they  were  to  be  filled 
again.  But  the  outed  conformists  were  not  picturesque,  and  their 
cause  has  never  been  popular.  They  did  not  go  about  in  armed 
conventicles,  they  had  not  the  chance,  though  in  the  North  there 
were  places  where  their  flocks  backed  them  vi  et  armis.  They 
never  murdered  a  Moderator  on  Magus  Muir.  In  Edinburgh  they 
held  their  quiet  meetings,  where  they  did  what  they  had  not  dared 
to  do  publicly  under  the  Restoration,  —  they  used  the  English 
Prayer-Book.  That  noble  and  beautiful  Liturgy  thus  stole  back 
into  Scotland,  under  the  shadow  of  persecution,  affording  to  a  little 
flock  a  shelter  against  the  absurdities  which  too  often  accompany 
"conceived  prayers,"^*'  unpremeditated  petitions. 

When  the  Assembly  appointed  a  day  of  fasting  for  "  defections," 
the  friend  of  Leighton,  Charteris,  told  his  flock  that  "  the  defection 
has  not  been  from  the  truth,  or  from  the  fundamental  articles  of 
the  Christian  faith,  but  from  the  life  of  God  and  the  power  of 
religion,  and  from  the  temper  and  conversation  which  the  Gospel 
requires  in  us."  As  to  Episcopacy,  that  was  no  defection  :  defec- 
tion lay  in  "a  factious,  schismatical,  and  uncharitable  temper." ^^ 

"  The  Societies,"  Cameronians,  observed  the  whole  of  these  tame 
proceedings  with  sorrow,  and  sent  five  men  with  an  address  to  the 
Moderator  and  Assembly.  Three  zealots  —  Lining,  Boyd,  and 
Sheild,  author  of  '  The  Hind  let  Loose,'  and  chaplain  of  the 
Cameronian  regiment — now  came  in  and  were  reconciled  to  the 
Kirk.  A  long  paper  exonerating  their  consciences  as  to  the 
grounds  of  defection  was  not  publicly  read,  being  thought  to 
contain  injurious  and  uncharitable  reflections ;  a  shorter  paper,  with 
their  reasons  for  coming  in,  was  accepted.^^  The  five  deputies 
requested  the  Assembly,  in  very  becoming  terms,  to  read  the  longer 
paper,  which  represented  their  ideas  about  all  manner  of  sins  com- 


KIRK   AND   CAMERONIANS    (1690).  35 

mitted  in  compromising  with  the  ungodly.  They  had  never  meant 
to  separate  from  the  reformed  covenanted  Church,  but  only  from 
the  defections  of  many  of  her  members.  Schism  on  one  side, 
sinful  union  on  the  other,  were  Scylla  and  Charybdis — an  ex- 
pression which  they  did  not  employ.  In  addition  to  past  back- 
slidings,  the  Covenants  (like  the  hobby-horse,)  "were  forgot," 
"not  mentioned  by  many."  The  king  and  queen,  they  said, 
had  not  been  warned  of  "  the  guilt  and  danger  of  tampering  with 
and  patronising  Prelacy  in  England  and  Ireland."  The  five  envoys 
vrere  promised  some  satisfaction  in  a  proclamation  for  a  General 
Fast,  but  did  not  like  it  when  they  got  it.  Sheild,  Lining,  and 
Boyd  were  regarded  with  disfavour  by  Cameronian  extremists, — 
tampering  with  these  three  men  had  been  sinful,  "a  step  of  de- 
fection, and  cause  of  mourning " ;  Cleland,  who  fell  at  Dunkeld, 
was  unpleasantly  spoken  of;  the  raising  of  the  Cameronian  regi- 
ment was  looked  on  as  sinful  and  scandalous.  No  better  were 
owning  of  civil  courts,  and  payment  of  cess  "  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  Prince  and  Princess  of  Orange,  now  become  the  head  of 
the  Malignants,  Prelatics,  Indulged,  Toleratists,  and  Sectarians  in 
these  lands."  ^ 

Meanwhile  the  Cameronians  had  no  ordained  minister ;  how  they 
at  last  obtained  one  is  told  later.  Their  extreme  ideas  were  ex- 
pressed, till  far  into  the  eighteenth  century,  in  the  declarations  of 
the  Cameronian  party  and  in  the  dying  confessions  of  eminent 
saints.  The  Remnant  were  so  adverse  to  "  the  idolatrous  oc- 
cupants upon  the  throne "  that  the  Jacobites  often  had  hopes  of 
an  alliance  with  the  Cameronians.  But  the  anachronism  of  the 
Covenant,  with  its  associated  ideas,  tended  to  become  a  mere 
sentiment,  and  is  still  dear  even  to  many  members  of  the  "  cauld- 
rife  and  Erastian  establishment."  One  joyous  task  was  left  to  the 
Sixty  Bishops  :  they  thoroughly  purged  the  garner  of  scandalous 
and  erroneous  ministers,  who,  naturally,  were  as  a  rule  conformists. 
The  purging  was  resisted  in  some  parts  of  the  country  north  of 
Tay.  William  had  not  been  allowed  to  carry  the  amendments  in 
the  Act  which  he  suggested  in  May  :  patronage,  in  spite  of  the 
king,  had  been  abolished  (July  19) ;  the  purgers  of  the  Kirk  were 
not  subjected  to  the  approval  of  the  Privy  Council ;  Episcopalians 
taking  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  were  not  **  indulged  "  like  Dissenters 
in  England ;  and  Christ's  Church  was  not  delimited  as  "  the 
Government  of  the  Church  in  this  Kingdom  established  by  law." 


36  THE  HIGHLANDERS   (1690-91). 

Melville  gave  his  reasons  for  failure  on  these  points.^^     He  ceased 
to  be  Commissioner  in  1691. 

The  results  of  the  General  Assembly,  it  is  plain,  were  not,  and 
could  not  be,  agreeable  to  William.  Some  compensation  for 
abolished  patronages  was  assigned,  but  was  very  seldom  paid 
or  even  demanded.  The  mode  of  electing  preachers  was  not 
absolutely  democratic ;  but  as  patronage,  unluckily,  was  restored 
in  the  following  reign,  the  details  of  the  method  practised  in  the 
brief  interval  are  explained  later.  The  universities,  especially  St 
Andrews,  suffered  loss  of  scholars  relatively  distinguished,  and 
Edinburgh  lost  Dr  Gregory  in  Mathematics,  Mr  Douglas  in  Oriental 
Languages.  After  1690  there  was  an  interruption  in  the  meetings 
of  the  Assembly,  and  we  return  to  secular  affairs. 

The  surprise  which  scattered  the  Highlanders  at  the  haughs  of 
Cromdale  had  hurt  them  little,  save  by  the  loss  of  Lowland  officers 
whom  they  did  not  want.  The  Lowland  officers  of  Dundee,  as 
all  the  world  knows,  reaped  undying  honour  in  French  service, 
especially  when  they  captured  and  held  "  the  Island  of  the  Scots." 
The  story,  in  Aytoun's  verse,  is  familiar  to  most  schoolboys. 
Among  these  eighty  gentlemen  only  six  bear  Highland  names. ^^ 

By  October  22,  1690,  Tarbet  could  tell  Melville  that  though 
the  Highlanders  had  practically  suffered  no  losses  by  the  sword, 
the  methods  of  Colonel  Hill,  commanding  in  the  new  fort  at 
Inverlochy,  had  "broken  their  combination."^**  While  an  English 
officer  commanded  a  fortress  and  garrison  at  Inverlochy,  the 
Macdonalds,  Camerons,  and  Stewarts  could  not  entirely  trust 
each  other.  By  December  18,  Lochiel,  Sleat,  and  Keppoch  were 
reported  as  being  ready  to  come  in,  but  not  Glengarry.  Tarbet 
wanted  to  satisfy  them  with  money,  for  they  were  dangerous, 
being  as  fit  as  ever  to  wage  a  guerilla  war  or  to  join  in  a  French 
invasion.^''  No  less  than  ;!^i  0,000  would  be  well  spent  if  it 
staved  off  a  new  campaign.  Tarbet  still  wrote  to  Melville,  who 
found,  at  the  end  of  1690,  that  he  had  lost  William's  favour, 
perhaps  V^ecause  of  his  concessions  to  Presbytery,  but  the  reason 
is  doubtful.  Meanwhile  Hill,  commanding  at  Inverlochy,  was 
in  May  1691  ordered  to  use  severity,  and  force  the  Highlanders 
to  come  in ;  but  he  was  old,  he  knew  the  difficulties,  his  garrison 
was  ill  paid,  and  he  did  not  love  his  task.^^  The  Government 
wavered  in  its  resolution,  and  Hill  was  not  driven  to  a  mountain 
campaign  against  the  clans. 


BREADALBANE  AND   THE   CLANS   (1691).  37 

The  Appin  and  Glencoe  men  (June  3,  1691)  professed  readiness 
to  take  the  oaths  at  Inveraray,  the  Earl  of  Argyll  being  their  feudal 
superior.^''  In  June,  Breadalbane  (Campbell  of  Glenurchy)  was  en- 
trusted with  the  task  of  reconciliation.  At  heart  probably  a  Jacobite, 
he  had  doubled  in  and  out  among  the  plots  and  betrayals,  but  as  a 
near  neighbour  of  the  predatory  Macdonalds  and  Camerons  it  was 
his  private  interest  to  secure  peace  and  quietness  among  them.  Hill 
"expected  more  hurt  than  good"  from  his  interference.  Lochiel, 
Breadalbane's  cousin,  knew  him  better  than  he  trusted  him,  and 
regarded  the  gold  "  in  a  chest  at  London,"  destined  to  pacify  the 
clans,  as  likely  to  remain  in  Breadalbane's  possession.  None  the 
less,  in  the  end  of  June  some  chiefs  met,  as  an  agent  for 
William,  the  peer  whom  they  knew  best  as  an  agent  for  James. 
Breadalbane  had  arrived  and  seen  some  chiefs  by  June  26.  On 
June  30,  at  Achallader,  Buchan,  commanding  for  James,  and 
Barclay,  signed  a  truce  to  last  till  October  i,  and  so,  says 
Breadalbane,  did  the  Chiefs.  But  there  appear  to  have  been 
"  Private  Articles,"  secret  clauses.  The  truce  was  only  to  hold 
if  there  were  no  invasion  or  general  rising,  and  if  James  approved. 
If  William  and  Mary  refuse  the  terms  as  publicly  announced, 
Breadalbane  is  to  join  the  insurgents  with  1000  men,  which  "he 
promises  both  on  oath  and  honour " !  The  document  was  sent 
to  James.'*''  If  this  document  be  genuine,  and  two  copies  were 
presented  to  the  Privy  Council, — one  from  Livingstone,  one  from 
a  nephew  of  General  Buchan,*^ — Breadalbane  was  playing  a  double 
part,  and  this  charge  was  brought  against  him,  though  it  was 
rejected  by  Dalrymple  and  William. ^'^ 

All  this  time  William  was  abroad,  in  Flanders,  campaigning, 
accompanied  by  Sir  John  Dalrymple,  and  to  Flanders  went  letters 
in  which  Hill  spoke  his  mind  about  Breadalbane,  who  was  not 
ignorant  of  this  fact.'*^  Livingstone,  too  (August  4),  had  spoken 
very  freely  of  Breadalbane's  methods.^*  But  William  accepted  the 
truce  (August  27),  either  not  knowing  about  or  not  believing  in 
the  secret  clauses.  He  offered  indemnity  to  all  who  came  in  by 
January  i,  1692  ;  others  would  underlie  the  utmost  extremity  of 
the  law.*^  By  the  end  of  October,  Hill  reported  that  the  High- 
landers "would  not  settle  with  my  Lord  Breadalbane  upon  any 
account ;  ...  he  is,  saving  his  title,  no  better  man  than  some 
of  themselves."  *^  There  was,  indeed,  an  appearance  of  failure  in 
Breadalbane's  negotiations,  as  we  learn  from  the  letters  which  Sir 


.,.  'J 


38  "ROOTING  OUT  THE  CLANS  "   (1691). 

John  Dalrymple,  now  Master  of  Stair,  and  in  constant  attendance 
on  William,  wrote  to  the  Earl  from  camps  in  Flanders  or  from  town. 
But  the  clans  felt  the  weight  of  the  proclamation  issued  in  August, 
offering  terms  to  all  who  came  in  before  January  i,  1692.  The 
alternative  was  fire  and  sword,  and  they  were  too  disunited  to  resist. 
Who  knew  what  his  neighbour  was  doing?  In  March  1690 
William  had  commissioned  Tarbet  to  offer  as  much  as  ;^2ooo, 
and  any  title  under  an  earldom,  to  Sleat,  Dowart,  Lochiel,  Glen- 
garry, Clanranald,  or  the  uncle  of  Seaforth,  if  they  would  come 
in,*^  They  all  remained  honourably  free  from  titles,  and  probably 
Breadalbane  offered  none.  Still,  on  one  side  was  money,  and 
King  James's  permission  to  treat;  on  the  other  was  war  to  the 
knife. 

Macaulay  supposed  that  Dalrymple  was  throughout  averse  to 
reconciling  the  clans — that  his  eager  desire  was  even  to  crush  them, 
once  for  all ;  but  it  is  clear,  from  Dalrymple's  letter  to  Breadalbane 
(Approbiax  (sic),  June  15/23,  169 1),  that  he  would  have  much  pre- 
ferred to  see  Breadalbane  successful.*^  Dalrymple  persevered  in 
this  strain,  and  refused  to  believe  the  charges  of  double  deal- 
ing against  Breadalbane.  "The  best  cure  of  all  these  matters  is 
that  the  chiefs  do  take  it  [the  oath]  as  quickly  as  can  be" 
(September  18/28).  From  London,  on  November  24,  Dalrymple 
wrote  that  he  had  not  heard  from  Breadalbane  since  October  10, 
and  feared  that  a  conference  with  the  chiefs  had  been  unsuccess- 
ful. On  December  2  Dalrymple  foresaw  ruin  to  the  clans  if  they 
were  obdurate,  but  that  ruin  would  bring  "  no  advantage "  to 
Breadalbane  and  his  friends.  Lochiel,  "  your  doited  cousin,"  was 
giving  trouble :  "I  think  the  clan  Donell  must  be  rooted  out,  and 
Lochiel." 

The  terms  to  "  root  out  "  and  "  extirpate  "  appear  from  their  use 
in  former  proclamations  against  clans,  by  the  native  kings,  not  to 
mean  extermination^  but  the  reducing  of  a  clan  with  lands  and  a 
chief  to  the  position  of  "a  broken  clan,"  landless  and  chiefless. 
The  Macgregors,  with  their  "  name  that  is  nameless  by  day,"  are 
an  example  of  a  clan  "rooted  out."  "To  destroy  them  by  fire  and 
sword,"  said  the  Parliamentary  Commission  which  investigated  the 
Glencoe  Massacre  in  1695,  "'^  ^^  actual  style  of  our  commissions 
against  intercommuned  rebels."  *^  The  Commission  distinguished 
this  old  traditional  kind  of  proceeding  from  the  "  barbarous 
murder "   which   was   actually   committed.      "  Leave    the    Macleans 


DALRYMPLE'S   PLANS   (1691).  39 

to  Argyll,"  says  Dalrymple  on  December  2.  Macleans  and  Mac- 
donalds,  in  Kintyre,  had  often  been  "  left  to  Argyll "  ;  it  was  the 
regular  process,  much  like  our  modern  "  punishment "  of  some 
barbarous  tribe  in  the  dark  places  of  the  Empire.  The  plan  was 
a  "survival,"  in  1691,  but  it  was  perfectly  recognised  as  legal,  and 
did  not  at  all  imply  "  extirpation  "  in  the  sense  of  "  extermination." 
To  execute  the  process  on  the  great  clans  Donald  and  Cameron 
was,  however,  a  really  impossible  extension  of  what  might  be 
tried  on  the  Macleans  in  their  island  of  Mull,  but,  in  December, 
Dalrymple's  letter  shows  that  Breadalbane  meant  to  make  the 
attempt.  Dalrymple's  scheme  of  reconciliation  was  not  a  mere 
bribery  of  the  chiefs ;  ancient  feudal  claims  of  superiority  by 
Argyll,  old  grounds  of  many  a  sanguinary  feud,  were  to  be  regulated 
under  any  scheme.  Argyll,  as  well  as  the  chiefs,  must  consent; 
if  not,  "that  destroys  all  that  is  good  in  the  settlement,  which  is, 
to  take  away  grounds  qf  hereditary  feuds  "  (December  3). 

Macaulay  perceived  that  Dalrymple's  aim,  thus  expressed,  was 
thoroughly  statesmanlike,  but  avers  that  "  to  the  last  moment 
he  continued  to  flatter  himself  that  the  rebels  would  be  obstin- 
ate. .  .  ."  °^  This  is  certainly  incorrect  up  to  December  3 ; 
Dalrymple  would  have  preferred  a  peaceful  settlement.  But  failing 
that,  then  Breadalbane's  "scheme  of  mauling  them"  must  be 
undertaken  "with  no  delay."  If  the  "scheme  of  mauHng"  means 
merely  "a  punitive  expedition,"  it  was  in  order,  though  planned 
on  an  impossibly  extensive  scale.  The  great  clans  could  not  be 
cooped  up  and  massacred,  like  the  Maclans  of  Glencoe,  who  dwelt 
in  a  valley  four  miles  long,  hemmed  in  by  perpendicular  cliffs,  with 
rare  passes,  easily  manned, — such  is  the  local  situation  in  Glencoe. 
Buchan's  and  Leven's  regiments,  with  petards  and  guns,  were,  by 
the  first  plan,  to  take  and  garrison  Glengarry's  castle  on  Loch  Oich, 
an  operation  of  war.  "  Therefore  look  on,  and  you  shall  be  satisfied 
of  your  revenge."  ^^  Of  the  whole  state  of  things  William  was  duly 
informed.  Tarbet  had  discoursed  the  king  on  all  these  matters 
'^0/  f/ie  settlement,''  and  William  certainly  consented  to  the  regular 
and  usual  alternative  of  "  a  punitive  expedition."  ^- 

This  was  barbarous,  but  not  more  barbarous  than  what  was  done 
when  even  the  shellfish  on  the  western  shores  were  destroyed  by 
Cumberland's  soldiers  in  1746. 

However,  as  December  31  approached,  the  last  day  for  taking 
the  oaths,  the  clans,  except  Glencoe  and  Glengarry,  did  come  in 


40  GLENCOE   COMES   IN    TOO   LATE   (1692). 

and  take  the  oaths,  after  Breadalbane  had  returned  unsuccessful 
to  London,  bringing  back  the  money,  according  to  Burnet,  though 
really  he  had  not  the  money  to  bring !  What  money  he  had  spent 
was  his  own.^^*  On  January  7,  1692,  Dalrymple  wrote  from 
London  to  Livingstone.  All  of  Lochiel's  lands  and  those  of 
Keppoch,  Glengarry,  Appin,  and  Glencoe,  he  said,  were  to  be 
destroyed :  if  the  clans  were  obstinate,  no  prisoners  were  to  be 
taken.  The  weather  would  make  the  work  hard  for  the  soldiers, 
"  but  it's  the  only  time  they  [the  Highlanders]  cannot  escape  you, 
for  human  constitution  cannot  endure  to  be  now  long  out  of 
houses."^*  On  January  9,  however,  it  was  understood  in  London 
that  all  the  clans  had  taken  the  oaths.  Dalrymple  now  wrote  to 
Livingstone,  on  receiving  his  "  flying  pacquet "  with  this  news, 
"  I  am  sorry  that  Keppoch  and  Maclan  of  Glencoe  are  safe," 
for  he  had  heard  that  Glencoe  and  others  had  submitted  at 
Inveraray.  Probably  Hill,  at  Inverlochy,  had  told  Livingstone 
that  Glengarry  had  started  for  Inveraray  to  take  the  oaths,  and 
Livingstone  had  inferred  that  he  arrived  in  time,  by  December  31.^^ 
By  January  1 1  doubts  arose,  and  William  sent  orders  to  Living- 
stone to  attack  Glengarry  and  Glenmoriston,  if  still  recalcitrant.^^ 
Dalrymple  on  January  1 1  still  believed  that  Maclan  of  Glencoe 
was  safe. 

But  on  that  very  day,  later,  and  as  he  was  writing,  he  learned 
from  Argyll  that  Maclan  of  Glencoe  had  not  taken  the  oath.  Argyll, 
doubtless,  had  news  from  his  place,  Inveraray,  that  Maclan  had 
arrived  too  late,  and  had  not  taken  the  oaths  till  January  6. 
This  was  sharp  work  for  the  post  of  the  period,  but  how  else 
could  Argyll  have  the  information  that  the  oaths  had  not  been 
taken — in  time  ?  Ardkinglas,  his  kinsman,  the  Sheriff  of  Argyll, 
would  send  him  an  express.  "At  this  news  I  rejoice,"  wrote 
Dalrymple,  as  soon  as  he  heard  it ;  "  it's  a  great  work  of  charity 
to  be  exact  in  rooting  out  that  damnable  sect  [sept,  probably], 
the  worst  in  all  the  Highlands."  ^^ 

Maclan  was  the  chief  of  that  "  sept "  of  Clan  Donald  which 
occupied  the  famous  strath  of  the  Coe  or  Coan.  The  name  does 
not  mean  "the  valley  of  weeping,"  as  has  been  supposed,  but 
proVjably  signifies  "the  narrow  glen."  A  stream,  the  Coe,  flows 
through   a   bleak    u[)land   moor,    broad   enough,    till   it   comes   be- 

*  The  traditional  slander  thai  Breadalbane  helped  himself  to   the  money  is 
unfounded. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   GLENCOE.  4I 

tween  the  perpendicular  cliffs  wherein  the  tall  narrow  black  por- 
tal of  Ossian's  Cave  is  remarked  on  the  left  hand,  and  the  even 
more  unapproachable  rock  called  *'  the  Chancellor "  dominates 
the  right,  a  haunt  to  this  day  of  the  fox  and  the  eagle.  The 
burn  then  flows  through  the  shallow  and  swampy  lochan,  Loch 
Triachatan,  where  there  was  a  cluster  of  cottages — a  dachan ; 
while  on  the  left  lies  a  deep  narrow  chasm,  often  tenanted  in 
these  old  days  by  cattle  raided  from  the  lands  of  Breadalbane. 
The  burn  thence  sweeps  along,  receiving  at  an  elbow,  on  the 
left,  a  tributary — here  was  the  village  of  Achnacon  ;  then,  through 
a  wooded  glen,  it  passes  another  village,  Inverrigan.  Between 
bushy  slopes  and  grassy  knowes  the  water  reached  the  levels  by 
the  sea  (Loch  Leven),  where  the  chief  dwelt  at  his  house  of 
Carnoch,  unless  he  chanced  to  be  at  Achnacon.  The  main  part 
of  the  village  of  Glencoe  to-day  lies  beneath  a  knoll  where  a 
graceful  cross,  erected  by  the  last  Macdonald  of  Glencoe,  com- 
memorates the  massacre :  cottages  thenceforward  line  the  road 
to  Ballachulish  on  the  sea  levels. 

The  population,  in  1692,  dwelt  mainly  at  Achtriachatan,  In- 
verrigan, Achnacon,  and  hard  by  Carnoch.  If  the  mouth  of 
the  pass  by  the  sea,  the  ascent  past  Achtriachatan  to  the  Moor 
of  Rannoch,  and  the  pass  of  the  glen  at  Achnacon,  were  held  by 
soldiers,  all  way  of  escape  was  barred  by  cliffs  that  few  men  could 
hope  to  climb — the  wall  of  Bidean  nam  Bidan. 

Such  was  the  narrow  domain  of  Maclan,  an  old  man,  but  of 
great  influence  among  the  clans,  and  a  foe  of  Breadalbane.  There 
had  been  a  stormy  scene  between  the  two  chiefs  when  Breadalbane 
met  the  clans  at  Achallader  in  July,  and  Maclan's  sons  were  told 
by  him,  at  that  place  and  time,  that  Breadalbane  had  threatened 
"to  do  him  a  mischief."^** 

Maclan  therefore  had  his  warning,  but  it  was  not  till  "about 
the  end  of  December  "  that  he  went  to  Inverlochy  (Fort  William), 
across  the  hills,  some  twelve  miles  north,  and  asked  Colonel  Hill 
to  administer  the  oath.  In  summer,  as  we  saw,  his  clan  were 
ready  to  swear  at  Inveraray,  where  there  was  the  sheriff;  but  the 
road  thither  in  winter  was  long  and  extremely  difificult,  though 
trodden  by  the  Macdonalds  under  Montrose. 

Colonel  Hill,  a  good-natured  man,  hurried  Maclan  from  Fort 
William  to  Inveraray,  with  a  letter  bidding  Campbell  of  Ardkinglas 
receive  this  wandering  sheep.     Maclan  was  now  thoroughly  fright- 


42  SUBMISSION    OF   GLENCOE   (1692). 

ened :  he  crossed  Loch  Leven,  and  did  not  even  rest  at  his  house 
of  Carnoch.  He  was  stopped  for  twenty-four  hours  at  Barcaldine  by 
Captain  Drummond,  and  reached  Inveraray  about  January  3,  1692  ; 
but  the  weather  was  such  that  Ardkinglas,  the  sheriff,  for  three  days 
could  not  join  him.  Ardkinglas  scrupled  about  administering  the 
oath,  but  was  moved  by  the  tears  of  Maclan,  on  January  6.  The 
certificate,  with  Hill's  letter,  was  despatched  to  Colin  Campbell, 
Sheriff-Clerk  of  Argyll,  in  Edinburgh,  with  a  request  that  he  would 
reply  as  to  whether  the  submission  was  accepted.  A  Judge,  a 
Writer  to  the  Signet,  and  the  Clerk  of  the  Privy  Council,  Sir 
Gilbert  Elliot,  all  testified  that  they  saw  the  submission,  undeleted. 
The  Clerks  of  the  Council,  however,  not  knowing  whether  they 
should  receive  it,  had  consulted  the  Judge,  Lord  Aberuchil,  asking 
him  to  advise  with  some  Privy  Councillors.  He  did  so,  and  they, 
especially  Lord  Stair  (Dalrymple's  father,  not  named  by  Aberuchil 
in  his  deposition),  said  that  without  the  king's  warrant  the  docu- 
ment was  useless,  and  Colin  Campbell  ran  his  pen  through  it,  and 
gave  it  to  Moncreif,  Clerk  of  Council.  Dalrymple,  in  London, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  consulted,  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  matter  was  laid  before  the  Privy  Council  in  Edinburgh.^^ 
It  seems  to  be  by  error  that  Mr  Hill  Burton  says  that  the  delet- 
ing of  the  submission,  "  if  not  done  by  Dalrymple's  own  hand, 
was  done  to  fulfil  his  views."  Dalrymple  was  not  in  Edinburgh 
(perhaps  his  father  is  meant?),  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the 
paper  was  sent  to  London.™ 

Maclan  went  back  to  his  glen  thinking  that  all  was  well.  On 
January  16  William  signed  a  letter  to  Sir  Thomas  Livingstone, 
commanding  in  the  Highlands.  The  Jacobite  generals,  Buchan 
and  Cannon,  he  said,  had  passes  to  go  to  Leith  and  to  the  Nether- 
lands. Glengarry  and  his  clan  might  take  the  oaths  in  Livingstone's 
presence  if  they  gave  up  the  castle.  Their  lives  would  be  safe ; 
for  their  estates  they  must  trust  to  the  king's  mercy.  If  the 
Castle  of  Invergarry  were  too  strong  to  be  taken,  then  Glengarry, 
on  handing  it  over  and  taking  the  oath,  was  to  receive  "an  entire 
indemnity  for  life  and  fortune."  It  would  be  better  that  "  they 
should  be  obliged  to  render  upon  mercy,"  as  they  had  outstayed 
the  date  of  December  31,  1691,  but  if  the  castle  could  not  be 
reduced,  then  absolute  indemnity  should  be  offered. 

He  went  on  :  "  If  Maclan  of  Glencoe  and  that  tribe  can  be 
well   separated  from   the  rest,    it   will   be   a   proper   vindication   of 


MACIANS   TO   HE   "EXTIRPATED"   (1692).  43 

public  justice  to  extirpate  that  sect  of  thieves."  A  duplicate  was 
sent  to  Hill,  at  Inverlochy.*^^  Now,  in  London,  Dalrymple,  we 
saw,  on  January  9  had  heard  that  Maclan  had  taken  the  oaths 
at  Inveraray.  On  January  1 1  we  saw  he  heard  from  Argyll  that 
Maclan  had  nof  taken  the  oaths.  Probably  he  had  learned  that 
the  oaths  were  taken  too  late,  like  those  of  Glengarry,  and  he 
saw  his  chance.  William  must  have  known  whatever  it  was  that 
Dalrymple  knew,  and  he  signed  the  order  to  "extirpate  that 
sect  of  thieves."  In  all  probability  William  merely  meant  to  send 
"a  punitive  expedition,"  wishing,  as  Dalrymple  wrote  on  January 
16,  that  "the  thieving  tribe  of  Glencoe  may  be  rooted  out  in 
earnest."  ^2  But  did  William  know  the  deadly  earnestness  of 
Dalrymple's  purpose  ?  On  January  1 6  Dalrymple  wrote  to  tell 
Hill  that  Argyll  and  Breadalbane  had  promised  to  hem  off 
fugitives  into  their  bounds,  that  "  the  passes  to  Rannoch,  &c. 
[&c.  meaning  Lochaber],  would  be  secured,  and  that  a  party  at 
Island  Stalker  [the  castle  on  an  isle  off  Appin]  must  cut  them 
off";  while  to  flee  by  boat  across  Loch  Leven  left  the  Maclans 
to  the  mercy  of  the  garrison  at  Inverlochy,  and  of  Argyll's  men 
in  Keppoch,  now  told  off  to  assist  the  garrison  there. 

If  William  knew  these  details,  he  knew  that  the  scheme  did 
not  mean  "uprooting"  the  Maclans,  in  the  sense  of  driving  them 
away, — a  broken  clan, — but  aimed  at  absolute  exterjuination.  Such 
were  Dalrymple's  orders  of  January  16,  January  30.^^  Not  a 
cranny  was  to  be  left  open  to  the  fugitives.  The  Maclans  were 
to  be  taken  and  slain  in  a  net  which  had  not  one  broken  mesh. 
Did  William  know  ?  He  never  would  punish  his  instruments ; 
the  rest  is  between  himself  and  his  Maker.  Be  it  observed  that 
for  Dalrymple's  plan,  as  it  stood  on  January  30,  no  domestic 
treachery  was  necessary,  no  acceptance  of  Highland  hospitality, 
to  be  repaid  by  "  the  felon  steel."  The  mere  disposition  of  the 
forces,  and  an  onslaught  by  day,  were  all  that  Dalrymple  needed 
for  the  success  of  his  scheme  of  absolute  extermination.  His 
officers  acted  in  the  dark  of  night,  on  a  system  of  unheard-of 
treachery,  but  happily  blundered  in  its  execution.  When  William, 
later,  gave  Dalrymple  (by  that  time  Viscount  Stair,  and  expelled 
from  office)  a  general  indemnity,  he  stated  that  Dalrymple,  being 
in  London,  knew  nothing  of  "  the  manner  of  execution,"  which 
"was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  humanity  and  hospitality."  That 
was  true,  but  Dalrymple's  own  strategy  meant  absolute  extermina- 


44  THE   EVE   OF   MASSACRE. 

tion,  and  nothing  short  of  that,  though  he  did  not  suggest  an 
onfall  by  treachery.  The  glen  was  to  be  netted,  and  no  prisoners 
were  to  be  taken.  The  guilt  of  that  resolve  lies  on  Dalrymple's 
memory,  and  the  memory  of  William  must  take  its  chance. 

As  for  the  actual  assassins.  Hill,  who  could  scarcely  help  himself 
except  by  sending  in  his  papers,  left  the  command  of  his  part  of 
the  forces  to  Lieutenant-Colonel  Hamilton.  He  was  apprised  by 
Livingstone,  from  Edinburgh  (January  23),  that  "the  order  is 
positive  to  me  from  Court  not  to  spare  any  of  them  "  who  came 
in  after  December  31.  "Do  not  trouble  the  Government  with 
prisoners."  If  Claverhouse  had  written  thus,  we  may  imagine  the 
virtuous  indignation  of  the  Historic  Muse.^*  At  Court,  by  this 
time,  it  was  known  that  Maclan  had  taken  the  oaths,  but  too 
late. 

Campbell  of  Glenlyon  commanded  the  120  men  who  peacefully 
entered  Glencoe  and  were  billeted  in  the  cottages  on  February  i. 
Old  Maclan's  son,  Alexander,  had  married  a  niece  of  Glenlyon, 
and  the  military  party  drank,  dined,  and  played  cards  at  the  houses 
of  the  chief  and  his  sons,  whose  throats  they  were  determined 
to  cut. 

On  February  12  Hill  gave  his  Lieutenant -Colonel,  Hamilton, 
written  orders  to  march  with  400  of  the  Inverlochy  garrison  to 
Glencoe,  where  400  of  Argyll's  regiment,  under  Major  Duncanson, 
would  aid  them  in  executing  Livingstone's  orders.  Hamilton 
communicated  this  command  to  Duncanson.  All  were  to  be  at 
their  posts  by  5  a.m.  on  the  following  day,  Duncanson  watching 
the  southern  exits,  and  especially  taking  care  "  that  the  old  fox 
nor  none  of  his  cubs  get  away."  All  boats  were  to  be  moored  on 
the  northern  side  of  the  narrow  ferry  of  Ballachulish.  Duncanson, 
on  February  12,  conveyed  the  orders  to  Glenlyon.  No  man  under 
seventy  was  to  be  spared.  The  massacre  was  to  begin  by  5  a.m. 
whether  Duncanson  had  arrived  or  not.  "  This  is  by  the  king's 
special  command,  .  .  .  that  these  miscreants  be  cut  off,  root  and 
branch."  Duncanson's  message  had  only  to  travel  some  four  miles, 
from  Ballachulish  to  Glenlyon  in  Glencoe. 

According  to  the  tradition  of  the  glen,  the  cottars  and  soldiers 
were  taking  part  in  some  sports  in  the  afternoon  of  February  12, 
in  a  field  near  the  monumental  cross  of  to-day.  A  large  boulder 
stands  there  erect,  and  one  of  the  soldiers,  slapping  it  with  his 
open  hand,  said — 


THE   MASSACRE   (1692).  45 

"  Thou  grey  stone  of  the  glen, 
Though  great  is  thy  right  to  be  in  it, 
If  thou  but  knewest  what  is  to  happen  this  night, 
Thou  wouldst  not  abide  here." 

Some  clansmen  are   said   to  have   acted   on   this   warning.     (The 
original  is  in  Gaelic  verse.*) 

At  five  in  the  morning  of  February  13  Lieutenant  Lindsay 
with  a  few  soldiers  roused  Maclan,  were  admitted,  shot  the  chief, 
and  stripped  Lady  Glencoe's  rings  from  her  fingers  with  their  teeth ! 
Two  or  three  men  were  shot.  Soldiers  called  to  young  Glencoe 
before  dawn,  and  he  slipped  up  to  Inverrigan,  where  Glenlyon 
was  quartered.  He  and  his  men  were  arming,  and  explained  that 
they  were  going  to  set  out  against  the  Glengarry  Macdonalds. 
Had  mischief  been  meant,  Glenlyon  said  that  he  would  have 
warned  the  husband  of  his  niece.  Young  Glencoe  went  back  to 
bed,  his  servant  again  roused  him,  he  saw  twenty  soldiers  approach- 
ing with  fixed  bayonets,  took  to  the  hill,  and  heard  the  shots  at 
Achnacon,  where  Achintriachatan  and  four  others  were  killed. 
He  was  then  joined  by  his  brother  Alexander,  and  now  the  sounds 
of  shooting  at  Inverrigan  reached  their  ears.  At  Inverrigan  nine 
men  were  caught,  bound,  and  shot.  Captain  Drummond  prevented 
Glenlyon  from  sparing  a  lad  of  twenty  ;  a  boy  who  pitifully  im- 
plored mercy  of  Glenlyon  was  done  to  death ;  a  child's  hand  was 
found  lying  loose, — for  the  child  the  foxes  and  eagles  may  have 
accounted.  Three  or  four  women  perished  by  sword  or  shot, 
the  houses  were  burned,  and  about  1000  head  of  cattle  and  horses 
were  driven  away. 

But  Hamilton,  who  now  came  down  from  the  upper  end  of 
the  glen  to  stop  the  passes,  had  moved  too  late,  and  failed  to 
keep  tryst.  The  glen  therefore  was  not  netted,  and  probably  not 
more  than  twenty-five  or  thirty  persons  died  by  shot  or  steel.  The 
blundering  Hamilton  arrived  in  full  daylight,  to  find  blackened 
huts,  corpses  lying  across  the  doorways,  and  a  survivor  of  the  age 
of  eighty,  whom  he  shot.  Probably  some  of  the  weaker  fugitives 
died  of  cold  and  hunger.  We  hear  of  no  resistance,  except  in 
local  tradition,  which  points  out  a  field  as  the  burying-place  of 
two  or  three  soldiers. 

On  the  5th  of  March  Dalrymple  writes  to  Hill :  "There  is  much 

*  "The  Massacre  of  Glencoe,"  Melven.  This  is  an  excellent  account  of 
the  topography,  and  a  good  criticism  of  the  whole  affair. 


46  THE   ADVENTURE   OF   THE   BASS   (1691-94). 

talk  of  it  here  that  they  are  murdered  in  their  beds  after  they  had 
taken  the  allegiance ;  for  the  last,  I  know  nothing  of  it.  I  am  sure 
neither  you  nor  anybody  empowered  to  treat  or  give  indemnity  did 
give  him  the  oath,  and  to  take  it  from  anybody  else  after  the  date 
[diet]  elapsed  did  import  nothing.  All  I  regret  is  that  any  of  the 
sect  got  away,  and  there  is  necessity  to  prosecute  them  to  the 
utmost."  ""^  But  this  cruel  man  was  disappointed.  On  October  3 
Hill  received  the  Glencoe  men  into  peace.^ 

Though  the  affair  was  known  in  London  on  March  5,  it  was 
unnoticed  by  the  news-sheets.  '  The  Paris  Gazette,'  in  April,  pub- 
lished a  brief  but  fairly  accurate  account  of  the  massacre  of  Glen- 
lyon,  dated  Edinburgh,  March  22,  1692;  it  was  erroneously  said 
that  two  of  Maclan's  sons  were  slain.  The  Whig  story  was  that 
Maclan  had  been  taken  in  an  ambuscade,  sword  in  hand.  In 
April  1692  a  printed  letter  told  the  tale:  for  some  apologetic 
reason  Macaulay  tries  to  make  out  that  this  paper  was  of  1693. 

On  March  6  William  went  to  his  glorious  wars,  and  the  affair 
does  not  seem  to  have  interested  him  in  any  degree.  But  the 
soldiers  said  that  Maclan  "hangs  about  Glenlyon  night  and  day, 
— you  may  see  him  on  his  face."  Dalrymple  had  expressed  his 
mortification  at  the  failure  of  his  strategy ;  and  it  is  not  matter 
of  marvel  that  Claverhouse,  who  knew  the  man,  greatly  disliked 
Dalrymple.  In  later  years  a  Stair  is  said  to  have  paid  a  man 
to  murder  James's  son,  the  Chevalier  de  St  George,  at  Avignon, 
— a  fact  of  which  there  is  but  shadowy  evidence.^'^ 

By  way  of  relief  to  the  black  tragedy  of  Glencoe,  there  occurred 
a  very  gay  and  gallant  feat  of  arms  by  four  young  cavaliers.  At 
Cromdale  Haughs  Livingstone  took,  in  the  night  surprise,  four 
officers  of  Dundee,  —  Middleton,  Haliburton,  Roy,  and  Dunbar, 
names  worthy  to  be  remembered.  They  were  placed  in  the  for- 
tress on  the  island  rock  of  the  Bass,  "a  solid  mass  of  trap"  which 
stands  sheer  out  of  the  sea,  the  counterpart  of  North  Berwick  Law 
on  the  mainland.  Except  for  a  rocky  shelf  on  which  the  ruins  of 
the  fortress  and  prison  stand,  and  the  grassy  top  of  the  Bass,  all 
is  perpendicular  cliff,  beaten  on  by  every  wind  that  blows  and 
haunted  by  innumerable  sea-birds.  On  this  rock  had  been  im- 
prisoned many  of  the  saints  of  the  Covenant,  including  the  prophet, 
Mr  Peden  ;  Mitchell,  who  shot  the  wrong  bishop  when  aiming  at 
Sharp  ;  Mr  Blackadcr,  and  others.  Here  Pcdcn  was  visited  by  an 
angelic  form  ;  here  he  predicted  the  end  of  a  lass,  who  was  pres- 


THE    HEROES   OF   THE   BASS.  47 

ently  reft  from  her  lover's  side  by  a  gust  of  storm  and  carried  down 
by  the  wind  to  the  sea.  The  prisons  of  the  Bass,  which  had  rung 
with  psalmody,  heard  a  different  sort  of  singing  soon  after  the 
cavaliers  were  lodged  therein. 

On  June  16,  1691,  the  sergeant  commanding  in  the  Bass  sent 
his  garrison,  as  was  usual,  down  to  the  shelf  of  rock  which  con- 
stituted the  landing-place,  with  orders  to  take  in  a  cargo  of  coal. 
He  then,  according  to  Livingstone,  released  Roy,  Middleton,  Hali- 
burton,  and  Dunbar,  who  overcame  the  solitary  sentry,  trained  the 
guns  on  the  soldiers  below,  and  offered  them  their  choice  of  stand- 
ing fire  or  taking  passage  in  the  collier  to  Edinburgh.  They  pre- 
ferred the  latter  alternative,  and  for  nearly  three  years,  till  June 
1694,  the  cavaliers  kept  flying  the  flag  of  King  James. ^  The 
dauntless  four  men  were  joined  by  other  adventurous  blades.  They 
were  provisioned  by  two  French  men-of-war ;  and,  as  they  had  two 
boats,  they  raided  far  and  near,  seizing  sheep  that  were  pastured 
on  the  Isle  of  May. 

There  was  something  very  heartsome,  as  the  Scottish  say,  in 
this  adventure.  The  little  garrison  made  prize  of  several  passing 
ships,  and  drove  off  two  English  frigates,  one  of  sixty,  one  of  fifty 
guns,  with  shattered  sails  and  rigging.  They  were  provisioned  by 
help  of  a  Mr  Trotter,  who,  unfortunately,  was  taken  and  hanged 
opposite  the  Bass.  The  garrison  disturbed  the  ceremony  with  their 
guns,  but  Trotter  had  to  suffer.  Meanwhile  warships  watched  the 
rock  so  closely  that  in  June  1694  the  cavaHers  sent  in  a  flag 
of  truce.  They  received  the  Government's  negotiators  well,  en- 
tertained them  with  French  wine  and  dainties,  hoarded  for  the 
purpose ;  stationed  dummy  figures  of  soldiers  on  the  higher  walls, 
and  altogether  made  so  brave  a  show  that  their  unprecedented 
terms  of  surrender  were  accepted.  They  departed  with  all  the 
honours  of  war,  with  an  absolute  indemnity,  and  with  whatever 
they  had  taken  as  prize,  while  all  their  abettors  were  pardoned. 
This  splendid  close  to  their  gallant  feat  they  owed  to  their  courage 
and  address;  for  of  their  number  not  only  Trotter,  but  a  Captain 
Middleton  (not  the  cavalier  of  that  name  who  commanded  on  the 
rock  for  King  James)  and  two  others,  were  taken  and  were  con- 
demned, but  seem  not  to  have  been  executed. ^^ 

The  affair  of  the  Bass  probably  gave  William  little  uneasiness, 
and  the  Massacre  of  Glencoe  gave  him  no  uneasiness  at  all,  till 
public  opinion  later  called  for  an  inquiry.     What  did  concern  him 


48        A  TROUBLESOME   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY    (1692-93). 

was  the  reviving  spirit  of  unrest  among  the  Presbyterians,  and  the 
anomalous  and  melancholy  condition  of  the  lately  conformist  clergy, 
as  represented  to  him  by  the  Rev.  Dr  Canaries.  Carstares  and  men 
of  his  moderate  opinions  were  nervous  about  the  next  meeting  of 
the  General  Assembly.  The  Kirk  had  a  legal  right  to  a  yearly 
Assembly:  that  of  1691  had  been  adjourned,  and  the  next  As- 
sembly met  on  January  15,  1692.  It  was,  apart  from  justice  and 
Christian  charity,  in  the  interest  of  William  that  the  late  Episcopal 
incumbents,  if  they  took  oaths  of  allegiance,  should  remain  in  their 
parishes  and  be  represented  in  the  Assembly.  This  was  the  one 
way  of  winning  them  from  Jacobitism,  and  of  preventing  them  from 
arousing  dangerous  sympathy  among  churchmen  in  England.  But 
the  Assembly  of  1692,  consisting  of  but  170  members,  was 
not  in  a  placable  temper.  In  the  Kirk  were  many  ministers 
much  in  sympathy  with  the  Cameronians,  though  not  inclined 
to  abandon  their  cures  and  go  out  into  the  wilderness.  These 
men  were  found  not  so  much  among  the  aged  "  sufferers "  as  in 
the  new  generation. 

Polwarth,  now  Lord  Polwarth,  and  rallie  to  the  Government, 
wrote  to  Portland  (January  26,  1692),  "The  Assembly  is  a  set  of 
men  much  younger  and  hotter-spirited  than  the  last  was."  The 
lay  members  from  the  western  shires  were  youthful  and  zealous. 
After  three  weeks  they  had  not  satisfied  the  king's  desire  "  by  re- 
ceiving such  conformists  to  prelacy  as  are  orthodox,  free  of  scandal, 
&c."  The  Committees  were  eager  to  make  strait  the  way  of  re- 
turn into  the  fold.  On  February  13,  1693,  the  Commissioner, 
Lothian,  dissolved  the  Assembly.  The  Moderator  wanted  to  speak, 
but  Lothian  said  that  he  could  only  now  be  heard  as  a  private 
person.  The  Moderator  asked  him  to  appoint  a  day  for  the  next 
meeting.  Lothian  said  that  the  king  would  do  so  when  he  chose. 
The  Moderator,  Crichton,  "  a  man  of  a  somewhat  violent  character," 
says  Polwarth,  asserted  that  "  the  ofificc-bearers  in  the  House  of  God 
have  a  spiritual  intrinsic  power  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  Head 
of  the  Church,  to  meet  in  Assemblies  about  the  affairs  thereof,"  and 
he  named  a  day,  August,  the  third  Wednesday,  1693.'''^ 

The  Assembly,  however,  did  not  meet,  even  in  the  scanty  form 
of  the  Assembly  of  Aberdeen  under  James  VI.  The  declaration 
which  would  have  satisfied  William  on  the  part  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy  only  set  forth  that  they  "will  submit  to  the  Presbyterial 
form  of  Government";  it  did  not  say  that  no  other  form  of  Church 


CHURCH   TROUBLES  (1693).  49 

Government  was  genuine,  though  the  conformists  were  to  accept 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms.  If  admitted,  they 
would  have  been  in  a  majority,  and  it  was  not  in  nature  that  the 
Presbyterians  should  welcome  them. 

The  Estates  met  on  April  18,  1693,  under  a  Commissioner  un- 
grateful to  the  Presbyterians,  Hamilton,  now  reconciled  to  William 
again.  He  had  heartily  opposed  the  sanction  given  earlier  to  the 
rabblings  of  curates  executed  by  the  Brethren  after  the  Revolution. 
New  violence  was  done  on  May  19  to  the  Presbyterian  and  Jacobite 
consciences.  Ministers  were  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and 
acknowledge  William  and  Mary  as  king  and  queen  de  jure.  What 
right  had  the  State  to  impose  obligations,  good  enough  for  Highland 
chiefs,  on  ministers  of  the  Gospel  as  a  condition  of  office,  without 
the  consent  or  command  of  the  courts  ecclesiastical  ?  The  con- 
formists were  also  hit  (June  12)  by  an  Act  for  "settling  the  quiet 
and  peace  of  the  Church,"  a  body  which  has  seldom  evinced  an 
inclination  to  be  peaceful  and  quiet,  especially  in  obedience  to  the 
dictates  of  the  State.  A  General  Assembly  was  also  summoned, 
by  secular  authority,  for  the  following  year,  and  members  of  the 
Assembly  who  did  not  come  in  within  a  month  were  to  be  deprived 
of  their  livings, — deposed  by  lay  authority.^'^  Some  of  the  English 
Presbyterians,  in  a  letter  to  their  Scottish  brethren,  declared  that 
the  Bill  "threatened  Presbytery  in  Scotland  with  a  fatal  blow." 
Grub  thinks  their  letter  a  Jacobite  forgery ;  if  so,  it  is  a  good  and 
amusing  one.  The  Kirk,  says  the  letter,  was  "wounded  in  a  most 
sensible  manner,"  as  it  was  taken  for  granted  by  the  State  that  there 
was  "  no  Assembly  in  being."  The  Bill  aimed  at  "  the  extinguishing 
rather  than  the  calling  of  General  Assemblies,"  at  "ruining  you 
with  the  present  and  rendering  you  infamous  to  all  future  genera- 
tions." "The  Church  shall  be  miserably  enslaved,  and  ministers 
necessitated  to  juggle  with  almighty  God  by  oath."  The  preachers 
were  obliged  in  duty  to  "assert  a  king-dethroning  principle,"  the 
principle  dear  to  Knox  and  George  Buchanan.  Was  William  king 
by  blood,  election,  or  conquest  ?  No  mortal  could  say.  William 
was  hostile,  and  it  was  now  the  interest  of  James  to  support  the  Kirk. 
Even  Episcopalians  in  England  were  often  nonjurors,  much  more 
should  pure  Presbyterians  refuse  the  oaths.  William's  advisers 
"would  gladly  see  all  Churches  and  their  discipline  destroyed."''* 
Apparently  these  English  Presbyterians  preferred  a  chastened  James 
to  an  exuberant  William.      But  were  the  writers  English  Presby- 

VOL.   IV.  D 


50  TRIUMPH   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY   (1694). 

terians?  They  well  understood  the  old  Presbyterian  mode  of 
expression,  whoever  they  were.* 

The  new  Assembly,  summoned  by  the  king  for  December  6, 
1693,  was  adjourned  to  March  29,  1694,  Lord  Carmichael  being 
Commissioner.  Government  had  given  in,  the  oath  of  allegiance 
was  not  imposed,  yet  Bible-loving  Crawford  had  approved  of  the 
oaths. '^^  Of  what  were  William's  advisers  afraid?  The  Presby- 
terians could  hardly  become  Jacobites  !  But  the  times  were  ticklish, 
and  the  Government  quailed.  There  is  a  well-known  story  that 
Carmichael  sent  a  flying  packet  to  William  advising  submission, 
while  the  preachers  sent  an  appeal  to  Carstares.  He  was  out  of 
town,  and  came  to  Kensington  after  Dalrymple,  a  stern  young  man, 
and  Tarbet  had  persuaded  William  to  be  resolute.  The  king's 
despatch  was  written,  sealed,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  messenger. 
Carstares  took  it  from  the  man.  It  was  now  late  at  night ;  he 
disturbed  William  in  bed,  and  said  "he  had  come  to  ask  for  his 
life,"  since  he  had  interfered  with  the  messenger.  The  king  was 
angry,  but  listened.  Carstares  explained  that  his  Ministers  had  suc- 
ceeded in  uniting  Presbyterians  and  Jacobites,  and  that  the  king  by 
cancelling  his  despatch  would  win  the  hearts  of  the  Presbyterians. 
William  saw  the  point ;  he  bade  Carstares  burn  his  letters  and  write 
others  of  the  opposite  tendency.'''* 

The  Assembly,  thus  happily  escaped  from  peril,  met  in  a  com- 
placent humour  both  towards  convertible  conformists  and  Cameronian 
malcontents.  They  did  convert  a  few  Episcopal  ministers,  and  one 
or  two  others  were  deprived.  In  1695  many  were  allowed,  by  Act 
of  the  Estates,  to  hold  their  parishes,  though  they  could  not  take  a 
share  in  Church  Government:  116  now  came  in.'^^  On  the  whole 
the  Episcopal  party  tended  to  dwindle,  the  Bishops  had  no  Sees, 
and  the  clergy  became  more  and  more  the  tutors  in  Jacobite  families, 
as  of  the  Earl  Marischal,  and  the  repositories  of  Jacobite  principles, 
while  the  Cameronians  clung  to  the  Covenant  and  were  a  people 
apart. 

*  The  author  regards  this  letter  as  a  clever  Jacobite  piece  of  irony. 


NOTES.  51 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER    II. 

^  Lockhart  to  Melville,  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  232,  233. 
^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  238,  239,  245,  246,  295. 
^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  259. 

*  Scots  Episcopal  Innocence,  1694. 

*  A  Continuation  of  the  Answer  to  the  Scots  Presbyterian  Eloquence,  p.  34  : 

1693- 

®  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  296,  297. 

'  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  293. 

^  Burnet,  iv.  60-66. 

^  Annandale's  Confession,  August  14,  1690  ;   Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp. 
506-509. 

^°  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  380. 

^^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  414. 

'-  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  430. 

^•'  Balcarrcs,  Memoirs,  p.  60. 

^'  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  no,  in. 

^''  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  n3. 

^•^  Hill  Burton,  vii.  431.     Note  I. 

^^  Balcarres,  Memoirs,  pp.  61-64, 

^^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  437,  438. 

^•'  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  133,  134. 

'^'^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  170. 

-^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  198,  199. 

—  William  to  Melville,  June  9,  1690. 

^  Ferguson  the  Plotter,  pp.  284,  285. 

2-*  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  191. 

-■''  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  523-525. 

-"  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  582,  583. 

■^^  Crawford  to  Melville,  Oct.  9,  1690 ;  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  539. 

"^  Crawford   to    Melville,    Oct.    9,    1690 ;    Leven    and    Melville    Papers,    pp. 

541-544. 

'■^  An  Historical  Relation  of  the  Late  General  Assembly,  p.  23  :  1691. 

■'''  Monro  in  Grub,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  iii.  319,  320. 

"^  Grub,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  iii.  325-327. 

^^  An  Historical  Relation  of  the  Late  General  Assembly,  pp.  36,  37. 

"'■■'  Faithful  Contendings,  pp.  448,   488. 

^  Leven  and  Melville  I'apers,  pp.  xxiv-xxvii.     Note. 

•'*  Memoirs  of  the  Lord  Viscount  Dundee,  by  an  Officer  of  the  Army  :  1714. 

•'^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  553. 

•"  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  585. 

•'"  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  613. 

■®  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  618. 

■'*'  Hij^'hland  Papers,  Maitland  Club,  p.  22  ;  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  18,  19. 

*^  Highland  Papers,  p.  40. 

*^  Highland  Papers,  p.  45. 

''^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  647, 


52  NOTES. 

■"  Highland  Papers,  p.  28. 

■"  Highland  Papers,  pp.  35,  37, 

■*^  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  649,  650, 

^'  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  pp.  422,  423. 

^  Sir  John  Dalrymple,  Memoirs  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  ii.  210  :  1773. 

*9  State  Trials,  xiii.  904. 

^°  Macaulay,  iii.  520-522. 

^^  Dalrymple,  ii.  216,  217. 

^-  Report  of  the  Glencoe  Commission,  1695. 

^  Highland  Papers,  pp.  55,  56. 

®^  Highland  Papers,  pp.  57,  58. 

^5  Highland  Papers,  pp.  58,  59. 

^  Highland  Papers,  pp.  60,  63. 

^^  Highland  Papers,  p.  62. 

®*  State  Trials,  xiii.  897 ;  Highland  Papers,  p.  lOI. 

^^  State  Trials,  xiii.  898-900. 

*"  Hill  Burton,  vii.  402. 

^1  Highland  Papers,  p.  65. 

^-  Highland  Papers,  p.  66. 

*^  Highland  Papers,  pp.  60-71. 

*^  Highland  Papers,  p,  69, 

*5  Highland  Papers,  p.  75. 

«s  Highland  Papers,  pp.  85,  86. 

"  Gualterio  MSS.,  Add.  MSS.  British  Museum,  20.  311,  f.  342.  Mr  Paget's 
Paradoxes  and  Puzzles,  pp.  32-76,  contains  a  good  account  of  Glencoe,  in  criticism 
of  Macaulay.  See  also  A  Letter  from  a  Gentleman  in  Scotland,  April  20,  1692  ; 
and  Gallienus  Redivivus,  in  Memoirs  of  Dundee,  1714. 

^*  Leven  and  Melville  Papers,  p.  622. 

"^  State  Trials,  xiii.  843,  878  ;  Memoirs  of  the  Rev.  John  Blackader,  Appendix  ; 
The  Siege  of  the  Bass,  in  Memoirs  of  the  Lord  Viscount  Dundee,  17 14. 

^"  Marchmont  Papers,  iii.  401-407;  Grub,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland, 
iii.  328,  331. 

'1  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  262-264,  303. 

^^2  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  51-57. 

^^  Secretary  Johnston  to  Carstares,  May  19,  1693  ;  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p, 
179. 

^*  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  58,  62.  Hill  Burton  and  Grub  doubt  this  family 
story,  told  by  M'Cormick,  grandnephew  of  Carstares.  Principal  Story  defends 
it  (William  Carstares,  p.  235).  Probably  the  influence  of  Carstares  prevailed, 
whether  in  picturesque  circumstances  or  not.  Grub,  Ecclesiastical  History  of 
Scotland,  iii.  333,  Note  I.  Hill  Burton  thinks  the  story  a  Miirchen, — "these 
beggings  for  life  after  a  bold  act  are  a  common  State  anecdote,  repeated  in  all  ages 
and  nations."     The  begging  for  life  is  almost  certainly  a  myth. 

^^  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  263  ;  Ogilvy  to  Carstares,  Oct.  26,  1695. 


53 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE   EAST    INDIA    COMPANY.       THE   DARIEN    DISASTER. 

1693-1702. 

The  blood  of  the  Maclans  had  cried  from  the  earth,  vocal  in 
Jacobite  pamphlets,  and  in  the  mouths  of  the  countless  enemies 
of  Dalrymple.  In  1693  William  had  been  induced  to  commission 
Hamilton  and  others  to  inquire  into  the  matter,  but  the  death  of 
Hamilton  was  the  cause  or  excuse  for  delay.  When  the  Estates 
met,  in  May  1695,  ^s  William  was  starting  for  the  Continent,  they 
were  gratified  by  the  receipt  of  a  Latin  document  appointing  a  com- 
mission of  inquiry,  under  Tweeddale  the  Commissioner,  Annandale 
the  traitor,  Cockburn  of  Ormiston,  and  several  of  the  judges.^ 
Political  and  religious  prejudice  apart,  and  despite  the  indifference 
of  Lowlanders  to  whatever  was  done  in  the  Highlands,  "  murder 
under  trust "  was  the  last  crime  that  the  country  could  overlook 
or  forgive.  On  June  10,  also,  it  was  determined  to  try  Breadal- 
bane  for  treason,  in  connection  with  his  negotiations  for  peace  in 
the  Highlands,  the  charge  which  William  and  Dalrymple  had 
scorned.-  Whatever  the  methods  of  Breadalbane  had  been,  peace 
had  followed,  partly  in  consequence  of  the  defeat  of  James's  French 
allies  at  La  Hogue.  On  June  14,  and  on  later  days,  the  report 
of  the  Glencoe  Commission  was  demanded ;  on  June  20  the  com- 
missioners informed  the  House  that  it  was  ready,  but  "  in  decency  " 
must  first  be  sent  to  the  king.  But,  judging  from  a  letter  of 
Argyll  to  Carstares,  the  delay  was  only  for  three  days  :  ^  it  may 
be  remarked  that  Carstares  has  left  no  expression  of  his  own 
opinion  of  the  massacre.  The  report  was  read  on  June  24.  The 
House,  as  we  shall  see,  cleared  the  character  of  the  king ;  and, 
whether   as    a   reward    or    not,   the   Bill   for   the    founding    of  the 


54  PARLIAMENT   AND   GLENCOE   (1695). 

Scottish  East  India  Company,  generally  known  in  connection  with 
the  ruinous  Darien  expedition,  was  introduced  on  June  26.*  The 
Glencoe  report  stated,  with  precision,  the  events  as  we  have 
already  described  them,  giving  special  attention  to  the  evidence 
of  Maclan's  sons  as  to  the  threats  of  Breadalbane  in  July  1691 
and  to  Dalrymple's  letters.  There  was  also  evidence  from  officers 
of  Hill's  regiment,  two  of  whom,  in  a  pamphlet  of  1692,  are  said 
to  be  in  prison  at  Glasgow  for  having  refused  to  take  part  in  the 
crime.  The  officers  cited  were  Major  Forbes  and  Lieutenants 
Francis  Farquhar  and  Gilbert  Kennedy  :  the  two  last  may  have 
been  the  honourable  men,  alluded  to  by  the  pamphleteer,  who 
would  not  share  in  the  crime. 

The  Commission  decided  (i)  that  "a  great  wrong"  was  done 
in  not  presenting  Maclan's  submission  to  the  Privy  Council,  and 
was  committed  "  with  a  malicious  design  against  Glencoe."  But 
the  designers  were  not  named,  and  escape  in  a  cloud.  (2)  The 
commissioners  held  that  Dalrymple  knew  (indeed  he  had  written 
on  January  30,  to  Livingstone,  that  he  was  glad  of  the  news) 
that  Maclan  had  overstepped  the  time  prescribed  for  taking  the 
oath,  yet  had  taken  it.  The  king's  instructions  permitted,  as  in 
the  case  of  Glengarry,  the  admission  of  the  dilatory,  yet  Dalrymple 
did  not  countermand  the  orders  for  massacre  given  by  William  on 
January  16,  1692.  In  fact,  the  admission  of  the  dilatory  seemed 
especially  to  apply  to  Glengarry.  By  what  looks  like  a  quibble, 
the  language  of  William's  order  of  January  16,  1692,  was  held  to 
imply  that  Glencoe,  too,  might  be  received  to  mercy.^  (3)  Dal- 
rymple's letters,  the  report  said,  "  quite  exceeded  the  king's  instruc- 
tions " ;  and  they  did,  so  far  as  the  plan,  carefully  laid  for  exter- 
minating  the  clan,  outruns  the  order  for  "  extirpation,"  taken  in  the 
sense  of  uprooting  the  clan  out  of  its  glen.  The  result  of  Dal- 
rymple's letters  was  "  a  barbarous  murder."  Parliament  now  ex- 
amined the  case  in  detail,  and,  on  July  2,  heard  and  exonerated 
Hill/'  A  warrant  was  granted  for  the  citation  of  Hamilton,  who 
commanded  the  party  at  the  upper  end  of  the  glen,  but  he  fled 
from  the  country.  It  was  decided  to  prosecute  him,  and  to  request 
the  king  to  send  home  for  trial  Duncanson,  Lindsay,  a  Sergeant 
Barber,  and  others  especially  guilty.'^  The  king  was  also  invited 
to  relieve  the  distress  of  the  Maclans. 

On  July  10  the  House,  in  an  address  to  William,  extolled  his 
clemency  and  mercy,  as  exhibited  (rather  obscurely)  in  the  affair 


FAVOUR   AND   DISMISSAL   OF   STAIR   (1695).  55 

of  the  massacre.  He  had  "  offered  mercy  "  (in  a  manner  not  con- 
spicuous), and  yet  the  men  had  been  killed.  This  was  murder — 
by  somebody.  Dalrymple  had  exceeded  the  royal  orders ;  Living- 
stone was  covered  by  Dalrymple's  orders;  Hill  was  exonerated  ;  the 
subordinates  were  in  Flanders.  As  for  Dalrymple,  "  we  beg  your 
Majesty  will  give  such  orders  about  him,  for  vindication  of  your 
Government,  as  you  in  your  Royal  wisdom  shall  think  fit."  *^  Thus 
Dalrymple  was  left  in  the  king's  mercy,  while  his  Majesty  was 
asked  to  sanction  the  prosecution  of  the  agents,  from  Hamilton 
to  Sergeant  Barber.  It  is  difficult  to  evade  Macaulay's  argument 
that  disobedience  by  the  subordinates  to  miUtary  orders  would  have 
been  morally  virtuous  but  legally  criminal.  Two  lieutenants,  we 
know,  are  said  to  have  disobeyed.  The  Estates  really  could  not 
ask  for  the  trial  of  Dalrymple, — William  would  certainly  not  con- 
cede that  point :  indeed,  how  could  the  case  be  honestly  tried,  if 
William  did  not  himself  appear  as  a  witness  in  court?  William 
under  cross-examination  would  have  been  a  pleasant  spectacle ! 
Again,  we  cannot  suppose  that  Dalrymple,  now  Stair,  knew  before- 
hand that  the  attack,  though  designedly  murderous,  was  to  be 
*'  murder  under  trust." 

William  was  far  away.  He  dismissed  "  Viscount  Stair "  from 
office  (all  that  his  enemies  could  really  hope  for),  and  he  gave  him 
an  indemnity,  the  murder  under  trust  being  described  as  "a  fault 
in  the  actors,  or  those  who  gave  the  immediate  orders  on  the 
place."  Stair  had  "  no  hand  in  the  barbarous  manner  of  execu- 
tion," with  which,  however,  he  thoroughly  sympathised,  regretting 
that  any  had  escaped.  Finally,  "  as  a  mark  of  his  favour  to  John, 
Viscount  Stair,"  William  gave  him  grants  of  teinds  in  Glenluce ! 
Not  one  of  the  murderers  was  punished,  none  was  tried,  all  were 
promoted,  though  as  to  Sergeant  Barber  history  saith  not.^ 

Macaulay  speaks  of  William's  clemency  as  "  a  great  fault."  It 
is  certain  that  William  thought  Dalrymple,  who  had  his  ear,  did 
nothing  wrong.  It  was  quite  customary — it  remained  customary 
for  some  time — to  give  orders  for  uprooting  clans. ^*^  Stair's  orders, 
however,  had  arranged  that  extirpation  should  be  actual  extermina- 
tion :  William,  knowing  that,  saw  no  harm  in  that.  It  is  an  in- 
explicable blot  on  the  character  of  a  great,  brave,  wise,  tolerant, 
and  very  useful  man,  and  there  is  no  more  to  be  said. 

The  Estates,  in  addition  to  passing  the  Bill  for  the  Scots  com- 
pany trading  to  the  Indies, — in  its  consequences  ruinous  to  the 


56  HERESY   AND   BLASPHEMY   (1695-96). 

finances  of  Scotland,  and  injurious  to  the  character  of  William, — 
confirmed  an  Act  of  Charles  II.  against  blasphemy,  reasoning  against 
the  existence  of  a  Deity,  railing  at  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  and 
so  on.  Offenders  were  to  be  imprisoned  till  they  did  penance  in 
sackcloth  ("  Rags  of  Popery  ") ;  for  the  second  fault,  a  heavy  fine, 
for  the  third,  death  was  decreed. ^^ 

The  Restoration,  at  least  in  England,  had  been  fertile  in  ad- 
vanced religious  speculation.  Glanvil,  More,  Bovet,  and  others,  like 
Telfer  and  Sinclair  in  Scotland,  had  combated  materialism  with 
the  facts  and  theories  of  psychical  research,  in  narratives  of  the 
Drummer  of  Tedworth,  the  Daemon  of  Spraiton,  the  Poltergeists 
of  Glenluce  and  Rerrick  :  in  the  last  case  the  evidence,  collected  by 
the  Rev.  Mr  Telfer  (whom  we  shall  meet  again),  is  really  good  and 
strong.  These  old  compilers  of  ghost  stories  certainly  prove,  by 
their  contentions  against  it,  the  popularity  of  what  they  sweepingly 
style  "  Atheism."  In  Scotland  witches  were  now,  and  for  several 
years  later,  being  tried  and  burned — a  fate  shared  by  books  deemed 
heterodox.  Capital  punishment  for  blasphemy  seems  to  have  been 
rare ;  but  Principal  Baillie  of  Glasgow,  and  Professor  Sinclair  in  his 
'Satan's  Invisible  World  Disclosed,'  mention  a  sturdy  beggar  who 
was  hanged  at  Dumfries  for  saying  that  "  he  knew  no  God  but  salt, 
meal,  and  water."  He  was  suspected  of  having  set  the  devil  to 
work  in  the  case  of  the  Poltergeist  disturbances  at  Glenluce. 

In  1696,  after  the  revival  of  the  Acts  against  blasphemy,  a  lad 
named  Thomas  Aikenhead  was  accused  by  that  fickle  politician,  Sir 
James  Stewart,  then  King's  Advocate,  of  railing  upon  or  cursing 
one  of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity, — an  offence  punishable  with  death 
under  an  Act  of  the  first  Parliament  of  Charles  II.  This  Act,  as 
we  have  seen,  had  just  been  revived,  in  1695,  with  three  grades  of 
penalties,  culminating  in  death.  The  offender  was  a  minor,  the 
son  of  a  not  very  reputable  apothecary.  Aikenhead,  who  may  have 
heard  of  Spinoza,  was  accused  of  saying  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
post-Exilian,  a  fraudulent  composition  by  Ezra ;  that  our  Lord  was 
an  impostor,  who  had  learned  magic  in  Egypt ;  that  materialism  is 
the  only  faith  in  which  a  man  of  sense  can  live  and  die, — with  a 
great  deal  more  of  that  free-thinking  which  is  at  least  as  easy  as 
free.  In  England  Aikenhead  would  have  been  a  subject  for  the 
satire  of  Swift,  and  he  was  certainly  a  young  fellow  of  great  conceit 
and  of  very  bad  taste.  He  sent  in  a  petition  avowing  the  most 
extreme  orthodoxy,  and  averring  that   he   had   only  mentioned  in 


HANGING   A   HERETIC   (1697).  57 

conversation  the  opinions  with  which  he  was  charged  as  being 
those  of  certain  writers  whose  books  had  been  lent  to  him  by 
one  of  the  witnesses  against  him.  He  therefore  asked  the  judge 
to  "  desert  the  diet " — that  is,  abandon  the  case.  He  had  re- 
canted and  the  Inquisition  would  not  have  taken  his  life.  Five 
persons,  summoned  as  jurors,  refused  to  attend,  and  were  fined  a 
hundred  merks  each.  The  witnesses  were  students  and  clerks, 
most  of  them  minors. 

To  judge  by  the  evidence,  which  runs  in  a  stereotyped  form, 
Aikenhead  was  a  very  inconsistent  unbeliever.  But  he  had  no 
counsel,  and  was  found  guilty  and  condemned  to  be  hanged  on 
January  8,  1697.  Aikenhead  petitioned  for  a  respite,  that  he 
might  be  reconciled  to  heaven,  and  might  listen  to  godly  ministers. 
It  was  argued  that  one  of  the  witnesses,  a  wretch  named  Mungo 
Craig,  who  had  lent  blasphemous  books  to  the  boy,  alone  alleged 
Aikenhead's  use  of  the  words  which  brought  him  under  the  death 
penalty.  The  celebrated  John  Locke  advocated  this  view  in  a 
letter  to  Sir  Frederick  Masham  (Feb.  27,  1697).  Lord  Fountain- 
hall,  the  Judge  and  Diarist,  with  Lord  Anstruther,  visited  the  con- 
demned boy,  and  pled  for  mercy  before  the  Privy  Council.  "  It 
was  told,"  writes  Anstruther,  "  it  could  not  be  granted  unless  the 
ministers  would  intercede ;  .  .  .  but  the  ministers,  out  of  a  pious 
zeal,  spoke  and  preached  for  cutting  him  off.  .  .  .  Our  ministers 
generally  are  of  a  narrow  set  of  thoughts  and  confined  prin- 
ciples. .  .  ."  It  appears  that  two  ministers  did  make  an  effort; 
however,  the  Chancellor,  Polwarth  (the  Earl  of  Marchmont), 
delivered  in  the  Privy  Council  his  casting  vote  against  mercy, 
and  Aikenhead  was  duly  hanged.  The  Rev.  Professor  Halyburton 
of  St  Andrews,  who  confesses  his  own  early  struggles  against  un- 
belief, calls  Aikenhead  "an  inconsiderable  trifler,"  which  is  true 
enough,  but  to  hang  him  was  no  inconsiderable  error.  "  Wodrow 
has  told  no  blacker  story  of  Dundee,"  says  Macaulay,  rather 
fatuously.  When  his  own  History  appeared,  he  was  attacked  for 
inaccuracy  in  an  Edinburgh  newspaper,  'The  Witness,'  and  de- 
fended by  a  Unitarian  preacher,  Mr  Gordon,  from  what  Macaulay 
himself  calls  "  idle  and  dishonest  objections."  ^- 

The  affairs  of  the  Kirk  were  now  for  some  time  condemned 
to  the  background  of  politics :  a  lively  interest  had  arisen  in 
Scottish  commerce,  and  events  occurred  which  proved  that 
Scotland  must   sever  her  connection  with   England,  or  be  joined 


58  ATTEMPTS   TO   REVIVE   COMMERCE   (1604-1695). 

to  her  in  a  Union.  Throughout  the  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years  that  followed  the  Reformation,  the  history  of  Scotland 
seems  mainly  concerned  with  religious  issues.  There  is  the  long 
war  for  "  spiritual  independence,"  which  involves  the  right  of 
the  Kirk  to  coerce  the  State ;  and  there  is  the  counter-struggle 
by  the  State  for  secular  freedom, — a  battle  in  the  course  of 
which  the  Kirk  is  often  coerced.  This  contest  so  completely 
fills  the  historic  field  that  we  scarcely  notice  things  done  in  a 
corner, — the  attempts  made  to  found  Scottish  industries,  and  to 
find  some  outlet  for  Scottish  products.  Yet  through  the 
hundred  and  thirty  years  of  secular  and  religious  war  many 
douce  Scots,  merchants  and  burgesses,  must  have  been  tempted 
to  invoke  a  plague  upon  "  both  your  houses,"  the  preachers  and 
the  persecutors.  Poverty  was  ever  the  mate  of  Scotland  as  of 
Hellas.  Her  poverty  gave  England  the  power  to  purchase 
Scottish  statesmen,  or  at  least  to  influence  them  in  favour  of 
the  policy  of  the  EngUsh  Court.  Poverty  drove  the  flower  of 
the  youth  to  emigrate  and  seek  fortune,  whether  as  scholars, 
merchants,  or  men  of  the  sword.  To  poverty  was  due  the 
inefficiency  of  the  ill-endowed  and  often  robbed  universities; 
the  squalor  of  streets  and  houses,  reprobated  by  every  traveller ; 
and  even  the  laxity  of  morals,  for  we  are  told  that  peasants  could 
not  afford  to  marry  young,  and  therefore  "  maun  do  waur." 
While  Scottish  industry  and  trade  were  hampered  (as  has  been 
explained  in  vol.  ii.  pp.  552-555)  by  English  jealousy,  and  by  the 
strange  economic  ideas  which  prevailed ;  while  to  export  eggs 
was  reckoned  a  thing  contrary  to  ordinary  civility ;  while  the 
trader  opposed  the  introduction  of  English  commodities,  and 
was  too  proud  and  patriotic  to  learn  from  English  teachers  how 
to  make  shoes  and  soap, — Scotland  must  remain  poor,  and  must 
suffer  from  English  contempt  and  neglect. 

These  facts  became  obvious  as  soon  as  the  rich  and  the  poor 
country  were  united  under  a  single  king,  James  VI.  and  I.  He 
made  efi'orts  to  secure  privileges  for  Scottish  trading  companies, — 
a  Whale-Pishing  and  East  India  Scottish  Company  and  others; 
but  there  was  always  a  pre-existing  English  company,  whose  rights 
stood  in  the  way.  The  Scots  had  to  retire  from  the  competition, 
now  and  then  with  some  compensation  for  their  outlay.  Under 
Charles  I.,  and  again  under  Charles  II.,  fishing  companies  were 
launched  by  energetic  and  speculative  men,  and  were  wrecked  on 


EAST   INDIA   COMPANY  (1695).  59 

the  reefs  of  local  interests,  of  English  and  foreign  competition,  or 
died  of  lack  of  capital.  In  1681  Scotland  tried  a  scheme  of  Pro- 
tection. The  importation  of  fabrics  in  linen,  cotton,  and  wool  was 
forbidden,  by  way  of  encouraging  home  industries,  while  the  ex- 
portation of  lint  and  yarn  was  forbidden,  and  foreign  raw  materials 
were  admitted  free. 

The  records  of  the  New  Mills  Company  for  manufacturing  cloth 
(1681)  show  how  the  protective  system  worked.  Scottish-made 
cloth  was  very  expensive,  and  the  Scottish  Government  made  an 
exception  for  itself  from  its  own  rules,  and  imported  English  cloth 
for  the  army.  Unofficial  purchasers,  following  this  high  example, 
took  to  smuggling  in  English  cloth.  The  New  Mills  Company 
was  then  given  rights  to  search  for  smuggled  cloth  in  private 
houses,  and  got  the  privilege  by  bribing  persons  in  office.  Such 
methods  do  not  conduce  to  national  prosperity. 

After  the  regifitgium  of  1688,  a  good  deal  of  capital  which  had 
been  lurking  timidly  emerged  from  its  shy  retreats  and  sought  invest- 
ment under  the  Companies  Act  of  1681.  Labour  was  in  part  pro- 
vided by  the  Huguenots  exiled  from  France  by  the  Revocation  of 
the  Edict  of  Nantes.  There  was  a  period  of  inflated  speculation 
in  1695-96.  Many  companies  were  floated  for  the  most  diverse 
purposes,  and  then  came  the  inevitable  reaction. 

Scotland  had  been  prohibiting  the  importation  of  the  manufac- 
tured goods  of  other  countries,  especially  of  England.  They  re- 
taliated :  if  Scotland  excluded  English  cloth,  England  would  exclude 
Scottish  linen,  the  chief  product  of  northern  industry.  Thus  Scot- 
land had  no  outlet  for  her  manufactures,  while  she  had  prohibited 
the  export  of  her  raw  materials.  The  owners  of  sheep  could  not 
sell  their  wool  abroad ;  the  Scottish  cloth-makers  might  get  that 
wool  very  cheap,  but  could  find  no  foreign  market  for  the  cloth 
into  which  they  worked  it  up. 

It  was  during  this  deadlock  that  the  scheme  of  a  Scottish  East 
India  Company  was  conceived, — a  Company  trading  in  many  places, 
as  remote  as  Hindostan,  and  possessing  a  factory  and  entrepot  on 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The  world  at  large  was  expected  to  pur- 
chase Scottish  products,  and  when  the  scheme  took  practical  shape 
great  consignments  of  heavy  tweeds  and  serges,  perruques,  kid 
gloves,  thick  blue  bonnets,  and  Bibles  were  hurried  out  to  supply 
a  non-existing  demand,  that  of  the  natives  of  tropical  America  ! 
Meanwhile  capital  was  withdrawn   from   the   new  Scottish   manu- 


60  WILLIAM   PATERSON. 

facturing  companies  and  placed  in  the  great  East  India  project, 
where  it  all  disappeared.* 

The  initiator  of  the  Scottish  Company  trading  to  Africa  and 
the  East  Indies,  involving  the  Darien  disaster,  "was  not  a  mere 
visionary  or  a  mere  swindler."  He  was  no  swindler,  but,  as  a  man 
of  genius  labouring  under  the  irreparable  misfortune  of  being  in 
advance  of  his  time  and  of  the  national  conditions,  he  was  a 
visionary. 

William  Paterson,  son  of  John  Paterson  "/«  Skipmyre" — that 
is,  tenant  of  Skipmyre  ^^  (a  farm  of  Sir  Robert  Dalyell  of  Glenal,  in 
the  shire  of  Dumfries) — was  born  in  1658.  Of  his  education 
nothing  is  known.^*  In  a  memorial  of  Paterson  to  George  I. 
(1714),  he  says  that  for  twenty-nine  years  he  "has  had  experience 
abroad  and  at  home  in  matters  of  general  trade  and  revenues," 
which  takes  us  back  to  1685.^^  The  pamphleteers  accused 
Paterson  of  having  begun  his  career  as  a  pedlar,  and  of  having 
been  a  missionary  or  a  buccaneer  (chaplain  to  a  buccaneer?),  or 
both,  in  the  Spanish  Main.  How  he  came  to  travel  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Panama  is  uncertain.  We  have  no  proof  that, 
as  a  AVestland  Whig,  he  was  "out"  in  1679,  at  the  date  of 
Drumclog  and  Bothwell  Bridge,  and  was  sent  to  the  plantations. 
He  was  a  convinced  Presbyterian,  but  a  man  of  liberal  mind.-J- 
It  was  as  early  as  1684  that  Paterson  conceived  the  idea  of  a 
colony  in  Darien,  as  he  states  to  William  in  1701.^'^  In  1692 
he  was  in  London,  and  concerned  in  a  project  of  la  haute  finance 
which  came  before  a  Committee  of  Parliament.^^  He  is  famous 
as  "  the  chief  projector "  (so  styled  in  1 7 1 1 )  of  the  Bank  of 
England  of  1694,  and  was  one  of  the  first  directors,  with  a  stake 
of  ;;^20oo,  which  he  sold  out  in  1695,  presently  repurchasing  his 
stock.^^  That  he  was  "  neglected  "  or  "  elbowed  out "  does  not 
appear :  he  may  have  differed  from  his  fellow  directors  on  some 
point  of  business.  In  1694  he  successfully  reorganised  a  fund 
for  the  benefit  of  orphans  of  London  freemen.-*' 

•  The  author  here  condenses  the  lucid  account  of  the  economic  conditions  of 
Scotland  {riven  in  Mr  W.  K.  Scott's  "Fiscal  Policy  of  Scotland  before  the 
Union"  ('Scottish  Historical  Review,'  No.  ii.,  pp.  173-190).  In  a  series  of  articles, 
Mr  Scott  gives  the  history  of  the  early  commercial  undertakings  of  the  country. 

t  His  family  was  in  no  way  connected  with  the  Patersons  of  Bannockburn,  and 
"Clementina  Paterson,  daughter  of  Sir  Hugh,  and  the  first  wife  of  the  Pre- 
tender," as  Mr  Bannister  says,  thinking  of  Clementina  Walkinshaw,  and  "mak- 
ing more  mistakes  than  the  words  admit  of."'* 


PASSING   OF   THE   ACT  (1695).  61 

It  is  plain  that,  in  London,  Paterson  was  a  financial  light ;  and 
he  cannot,  as  Sir  John  Dalrymple  says  (writing  in  1788),  have  had 
"few  acquaintances  and  no  protection,"  He  twice  married.  His 
wives  were  English,  and  it  is  curious  that  he  did  not  submit,  as 
far  as  we  know,  the  Darien  part  of  his  scheme  to  English 
capitalists  in  the  first  place.  The  drawbacks,  sanitary  and  inter- 
national, to  the  Darien  settlements  were  so  far  from  being  obvious 
"to  every  coffee-house  politician,"  that  the  English  Council  of 
Trade,  in  a  document  signed  by  the  famous  John  Locke  among 
others,  advised  England  to  steal  Paterson's  plan,  and  occupy  a 
port  in  Darien  before  the  Scots  arrived  !  ^^ 

However  it  chanced,  Paterson  took  his  East  India  Company 
plan  to  Scotland,  the  scheme  for  a  Darien  colony  being  kept 
carefully  in  the  background.  Dalrymple  says  that  he  acted  on 
the  advice  of  that  professional  patriot,  Fletcher  of  Saltoun,  author 
of  a  notorious  plan  for  reintroducing  slavery.  Dalrymple  says — 
on  the  ground  of  "common  report"  apparently — that  Fletcher 
introduced  Paterson  to  Tweeddale,  and  by  force  of  eloquence  in- 
duced Tweeddale,  Stair  (Viscount  Stair,  the  Glencoe  man), 
Johnstoun,  and  Sir  James  Stewart  to  procure  the  Act  of  June  26, 
1695,  conveying  to  the  Scottish  East  India  Company  "a  patent, 
by  way  of  Act  of  Parliament,"  as  King  William,  we  shall  see,  com- 
plains.^^ Macaulay  has  adopted  Dalrymple's  story,  adding,  what 
is  pretty  obvious,  that  desire  to  soothe  the  public  fury  concerning 
Glencoe  may  have  been  a  motive  with  Tweeddale.  William,  as 
will  presently  appear,  thought  that  an  advantage  had  been  taken 
over  him,  in  the  "  touching "  of  this  Act,  by  his  Ministers.  On 
May  29,  1697,  Sir  Robert  Murray  writes  to  Carstares :  "You 
know  whence  the  origo  inali  was ;  but  ;^4ooo  is  a  good  reward 
for  putting  two  nations  by  the  ears."^^  Carstares  may  have 
known  who  paid,  and  who  took  the  ;!^4ooo,  but  we  are  without 
information. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Scottish  East  India  Act  passed  on  June 
26,  1695.  ^^  seems  to  follow  on  an  Act  of  1693  for  the  En- 
couragement of  Foreign  Trade.  It  is  announced  that  William 
promised  to  give  Letters  Patent  under  the  Great  Seal  to  companies 
dealing  abroad.  He  understands  that  foreigners  as  well  as  natives 
of  Scotland  are  "  willing  to  engage  themselves,  with  great  sums  of 
money,  in  an  African,  American,  and  Indian  trade,"  to  be 
exercised  from  Scotland.     Now  one  chief  cause  of  ensuing  trouble 


62  WILLIAM   "SURPRISED"  (1695). 

was  that  foreigners  —  namely,  Englishmen  —  did  take  half  the 
capital  of  the  Scottish  Company.  That  was  part  of  Paterson's 
idea :  he  saw  that  Scotland  alone  could  not  supply  capital  for  such 
an  undertaking,  and,  when  admitting  England  to  a  half  share, 
probably  hoped  to  enlist  English  backing  in  general,  as  well  as 
English  money.  On  this  point  he  certainly  reckoned  in  the  style 
of  a  "visionary."  His  new  Company  not  only  aroused  the  jealousy 
of  the  English  old  and  new  East  India  Companies,  but  of  the 
nation.  Scotland  was  to  be  the  entrepot  of  the  whole  wealth  of 
the  East  and  West, — gold,  spices,  fabrics,  and  every  sort  of  wares; 
and  to  the  English  people  this  meant  that  Scotland  was  to  be  one 
great  smuggling  concern.  Holland,  William's  other  realm,  could 
not  look  on  the  prospect  with  more  favourable  eyes.  Yet  as  early 
as  December  10,  1695,  when  England  was  already  murmuring, 
Sir  James  Ogilvy,  writing  to  Carstares,  hit  the  other  fatal  blot  in 
Paterson's  scheme,  the  blot  which  made  English  jealousy  needless. 
There  was  nothing  for  England  to  fear.  "  I  am  sorry,"  writes  Sir 
James,  "our  India  Act  occasions  so  much  trouble,  for  I  think  it 
will  do  little  hurt  to  England,  seeing  we  lack  a  fleet."  ^"^ 

Thus  Paterson's  idea  must  be  wrecked  on  EngHsh  jealousy,  and 
yet  did  not  deserve  to  provoke  jealousy,  for  Scotland  had  neither  a 
fleet  nor  the  material  means  of  building  a  fleet,  though  the  pro- 
moters appear  to  have  expected  to  be  backed  by  the  English  navy, 
on  which  it  was  obviously  vain  to  rely. 

These  being  the  fatal  faults  of  Paterson's  great  idea  of  a  Scottish, 
African,  American,  and  Indian  trading  company,  how  did  William 
come  to  allow  such  a  Bill  to  be  "touched"  with  the  sceptre  and 
passed  by  his  Commissioner,  Tweeddale?  Macaulay  writes,  "William 
had  been  under  the  walls  of  Namur  when  the  Act  for  incorporating 
the  Company  had  been  touched  with  his  sceptre  at  Edinburgh,  and 
had  known  nothing  about  that  Act  till  his  attention  had  been  called 
to  it  by  the  clamour  of  his  English  subjects."  "^  But  it  was  William's 
business  to  know  about  that  Act !  This  is  true  ;  but  a  march  was 
stolen  on  William  in  his  absence.  In  the  Lords'  Journals  for  Dec- 
ember 18,  1695,  he  is  quoted  as  saying,  "  I  have  been  ill-served  in 
Scotland.  .  .  ."  In  a  paper,  Carstares'  draft  for  a  despatch  to  the 
Scottish  Privy  Council,  the  phrase  occurs,  "  I  have  been  ill-served 
in  that  matter  by  some  of  my  Ministers  whom  I  employed — since 
the  instruction  I  gave  contains  only  a  warrant  for  an  Act  to  be  the 
ground  of  a  patent  in  favour  of  foreign  plantations,  with  such  rights 


PRIVILEGES   OF   THE   COMPANY   (1695).  6^ 

and  privileges  as  we  grant  in  like  Cases  to  the  subjects  of  our  other 
dominions,  ^he  one  not  interfering  with  the  other ;  but  it  leaves  the 
granting  of  the  patent  to  me,  to  be  timed  and  ordered  as  I  should 
see  cause,  so  that  I  must  say  a  patent  by  way  of  Act  of  Parliament 
was  a  surprise  to  me,  having  had  no  notice  of  it  till  it  was  past,  nor 
had  I  any  account  of  the  particulars  of  it  till  I  returned  to  England." 
Tweeddale,  Secretary  Johnstoun  (son  of  the  Covenanting  Johnstoun 
of  Waristoun),  and  other  Ministers  were  therefore  dismissed  for 
misinforming  William,  or  leaving  him  without  full  information.^^ 

On  this  showing,  William  incurs  no  blame  for  the  portentous 
Act  of  June  26,  1695,  and  that  Act  once  passed,  the  lamentable 
consequences  were  such  as,  with  the  best  will,  he  was  powerless 
to  avert.  The  Act,  in  short,  launched  Scotland,  of  all  nations, 
on  a  career  of  imperial  aggrandisement,  though  all  the  coin  in  the 
country  was  estimated  at  ;^8oo,ooo,  and  though  she  had  neither 
a  navy  nor  any  means  of  obtaining  a  navy.  Alone  she  was  to 
defy  France  and  Spain  and  England.  She  gallantly  threw  down 
her  glove  ! 

The  Act,  of  which  William  knew  nothing  in  detail,  granted 
the  most  sweeping  powers  to  the  Scots  Company.  Belhaven, 
Paterson,  and  several  others  were  constituted  directors  :  most  of 
the  directors  were  "  merchants "  in  London  or  Edinburgh.  One 
of  the  Londoners  was  a  Cohen,  a  Jew;  most  were  Scots  by-name. 
Subscriptions  were  to  be  received  up  to  August  i,  1696.  The 
lowest  subscription  was  to  be  ;^ioo,  the  highest  was  limited 
to  ;^30oo.  None  of  the  property  of  the  Company  was  to  be 
confiscated  for  cause  of  breach  of  peace,  or  declaration  of  war 
by  a  foreign  Power.  For  ten  years  the  English  Navigation  Acts 
of  1 66 1  were  to  be  suspended  as  regarded  the  Company.  Towns 
and  forts  may  be  built  with  consent  of  the  natives  on  any  land 
not  possessed  by  any  European  Power,  and  the  adventurers  "may 
seek  and  take  reparation  of  damage  done  by  sea  and  land," — a  right 
which  they  exercised  freely,  even  on  the  English.  Ships  shall 
return  with  their  wares  to  Scotland  only.  If  any  State  detains 
the  Company's  ships,  "  His  Majesty  promises  to  interpose  his 
authority  to  have  restitution."  All  concerned  in  the  Company 
are  declared  free  denizens  of  Scotland,  as  natives  of  this  kingdom. 
His  Majesty  ordains  Letters  Patent  under  the  Great  Seal  of  Scot- 
land, confirming  all  these  privileges  and  others. ^^ 

William  cannot  have  known  that  he  was  committed  to  all  this : 


64      INTERFERENCE   OF   ENGLISH   PARLIAMENT   (1695-96). 

the  chartering  of  a  Company  of  "  interlopers  "  into  the  privileges 
of  his  English  East  India  Companies ;  the  suspension  of  the  Navi- 
gation Laws ;  the  promise  to  support  Scots  who  settled  in  lands 
where  the  rightfulness  of  the  claims  of  European  Powers  were  to  be 
estimated  by  the  Company,  The  Act  was  a  wasp's  nest  of  causes 
of  English  wrath  and  of  foreign  war.  In  October  1695  the  books 
were  opened  in  London,  and  the  capital  for  England  was  subscribed  : 
English  East  India  Stock  fell  twenty  points  in  a  week.  All  was 
done  in  dern  privacy,  "and  oaths  of  secrecy  were  taken." ^^  Lords 
and  Commons  now  united  in  an  Address  to  the  king  against  the 
Company.  English  commerce  with  America  and  Asia,  it  was  argued, 
would  be  destroyed  by  the  scheme.^  William  could  only  answer 
that  he  "had  been  ill  served,"  and  that  he  hoped  the  inconveniences 
arising  from  the  Act  might  be  remedied.  The  Commons  ordered 
the  seizure  of  the  Company's  books  and  papers  :  they  examined 
and  thoroughly  frightened  the  English  capitalists  concerned  :  they 
examined  the  Scottish  Secretary  of  the  Company,  Mr  Roderick 
Mackenzie,  and  tried  to  extract  from  him  information  as  to  how 
the  Act  was  procured.^*^  They  did  not  frighten  Roderick,  and  he 
had  his  revenge  on  a  later  day.  They  voted  that  Belhaven  and 
others  should  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanours, 
as  if  they  were  English  subjects.  They  were,  in  fact,  safe  in 
Scotland.  As  a  result  of  all  this,  the  English  capitalists  ceased 
to  pay  up  their  subscriptions,  and  the  Scots  subscribed  for  the 
full  ;^4oo,ooo,  of  which  about  ;^2 20,000  was  actually  paid — and 
lost.  But  there  was  no  jobbing.  The  shares  did  not  rise  in  the 
market,  and  the  original  holders  did  not  "  unload  "  on  a  confiding 
public  and  pocket  a  premium.  Hamilton,  Belhaven,  and  Stewart 
of  Grandtully  alone  took  ;^3ooo  apiece.  The  daughters  of  the 
landlord  of  Paterson's  father  in  Skipmyre  farm  made  their  modest 
ventures.  Merchants,  whether  what  we  now  call  merchants  or,  as 
in  Scots  phrase,  small  shopkeepers,  "  plunged "  all  over  the  Low- 
lands. The  Celt  did  not  invest,  though  Macaulay  says  that  "  from 
the  Pentland  Firth  to  the  Sol  way  Firth  every  man  who  had  ;^ioo 
was  impatient  to  put  down  his  name."  Practically  a  good  deal 
of  stock  was  bought  in  by  the  Company,  which  guaranteed  the 
money  to  the  nominal  subscribers.^^ 

It  is  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  "  men  of  sense  staked  every- 
thing" on  Patcrson.  Landlords  did  not  sell  their  estates  and 
"go   banco"   in   this    gamble.      The    thing   did    not    really   cause 


THE  DARIEN   SECRETS.  65 

such  enthusiasm  as  the  signing  of  the  Covenant,  as  Dalrymple 
declares,  and,  unlike  the  case  of  the  Covenant,  people  were  not 
bullied  into  subscribing.  But  there  was  very  little  money  in  the 
country,  and  a  large  portion  of  that  was  swept  into  the  scheme. 
Investors  could  not  ask  themselves  what  kind  of  place  Darien 
was,  and  whether  it  was  claimed  by  any  European  Power, — 
questions  which  Macaulay  thinks  should  have  given  men  pause, 
— because  the  Darien  dream,  Paterson's  addition  to  the  East 
India  project,  had  been  kept  under  secrecy,  though  alluded  to  in 
an  early  pamphlet.  In  1696  the  directors  ordered  that  "some 
particular  discoveries  of  the  greatest  moment  to  the  designs  of  this 
Company  ought  to  be  committed  to  writing  and  sealed  by  Mr 
Paterson,  and  not  opened  but  by  special  order  of  the  Court  of 
Directors.  .  .  ."^'-  A  settlement  was  to  be  made  "upon  some 
island,  river,  or  place  in  Africa,  or  the  Indies,  or  both  " — nothing 
more  explicit  was  arranged  while  subscriptions  were  coming  in. 
The  directors  on  September  12,  1696,  were  concerned  with  im- 
provements in  the  manufacture  of  salt,  and  with  encouragement 
of  the  fisheries — modest  and  practicable  schemes.^^  The  papers 
about  "  the  principal  designs,"  the  Darien  venture,  were  sealed 
up  with  many  seals. 

Paterson  and  others  were  now  to  be  sent  abroad  to  engage  the 
aid  of  foreign  merchants  (July  28,  1696).  Men  were  despatched 
to  contract  for  supplies  and  weapons  (September  30,  1696). 
Cargoes  of  goods  were  selected  for  the  Gold  Coast  and  Archangel. 
Alexander  Grieve,  shoemaker  at  the  Goose  Dub,  took  up  a 
contract  for  300  leathern  bandoliers ;  wigs,  combs,  fish  -  hooks, 
buttons,  kid  gloves,  and  other  articles  adapted  to  the  simple 
taste  of  savages  were  ordered  in  considerable  quantities.  The 
Company  began  to  build  a  lordly  set  of  offices  near  the  Grey 
Friars  Church :  they  were  later  used,  "  by  one  satiric  touch," 
as  an  asylum  for  pauper  lunatics.  In  1697  the  English  Resident 
abroad  bullied  the  merchants  at  Hamburg,  and  they  were  cautious 
enough  not  to  engage  without  a  declaration  of  approval  from 
William.  Till  1699  William  replied  not,  except  in  a  dilatory 
way,  and  later  merely  said  that  the  details  about  a  proposed 
foreign  settlement  had  not  been  communicated  to  him.  Every- 
body, after  the  subscriptions  came  in,  wanted  to  know  what  was 
intended,  and  Tullibardine  bought  ^^500  of  stock  for  the  mere 
purpose   of  satisfying   an    intelligent    curiosity.^*       He    explained 

VOL.  IV.  E 


66      ENGLISH   DESIRE   TO   STEAL   PATERSON'S   SITE   (1697). 

that  he  wanted  to  be  able  to  prevent  "any  designs  that  may  prove 
uneasy  to  his  Majesty." 

By  June  1697  the  esoteric  aims  of  the  Scots  Company  were 
understood  in  London.  They  meant  to  apply  their  very  limited 
capital  (for  "  calls "  were  slowly  paid  in  diminishing  quantities) 
to  the  settlement  of  a  colony  at  Ada,  now  Caledonia  Bay,  on 
the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  The  advantages  of  the  situation  have 
ever  since  attracted  capital,  while  the  difficulties  of  the  transit 
of  the  neck  of  land  have  proved  the  ruin  of  enterprise.  On 
July  2,  1697,  Lord  Tankerville,  John  Locke,  and  other  members 
of  the  English  Council  of  Trade,  examined  the  famous  navigator, 
Dampier,  as  to  the  European  claims  to  own  the  coveted  spot. 
Having  received  a  report  from  Dampier,  Locke  and  the  rest 
advised  the  Lords  Justices  that  it  would  be  easy  for  Europeans 
to  make  a  settlement,  which  would  be  injurious  both  to  Spain 
and  to  the  Colonies  of  England,  and  they  recommended  "a 
prohibition  of  help  to  the  Scotch." 

On  September  16,  1697,  the  English  Council  of  Trade  rep- 
resented that  "  the  said  country  has  never  been  possessed  by 
the  Spaniards,  and  that  England  should  instantly  seize  Golden 
Island  and  the  port  opposite  to  it  on  the  main,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  other  Europeans,   .    .   .    lest  the  Scotch  Company  be  there 

before   us,    which   is    of  the    utmost    importance  to   the   trade   of 
England."  35 

Thus,  if  Paterson  was  misinformed  as  to  the  claims  of  Spain 
on  Darien,  he  erred  in  company  with  the  English  Council  of 
Trade.  Meanwhile  Paterson  was  robbed  of  part  of  the  Com- 
pany's funds  by  an  unscrupulous  agent  abroad,  and,  if  his  char- 
acter did  not  suffer,  he  certainly  lost  authority  and  prestige. 

In  July  1698  the  Council  of  the  new  colony  was  appointed, 
and  authority  was  vested — civil,  military,  and  naval — in  seven 
persons,  with  power  to  add  to  their  number.  Some  arrangements 
were  made  for  what  was  called  a  *'  Parliament "  in  the  colony,  and 
for  partition  of  profits  that  never  accrued.  Indeed,  corruption 
must  have  been  active,  for  only  an  idiot,  if  uncorrupted,  would  send 
thousands  of  perruques  and  even  bales  of  thick  tweeds  to  a  tropical 
market.  Most  of  the  Company's  capital  went  to  buying  ships,  car- 
goes, and  munitions  :  three  ships  and  two  tenders.'^  A  Journal 
kept  by  a  Mr  Hugh  Rose  tells  how  the  expedition  fared,  leaving 
Leilh  on  July  26,  1698,  with  1200  men  and  two  preachers.     On 


EARLY   COLONIAL   DAYS  (1698).  67 

October  3  they  took  possession  of  an  eligible  island,  which,  on 
October  4,  turned  out  to  be  Danish.  On  October  5  they  en- 
listed a  practical  buccaneer,  who  had  been  with  Captain  Sharp  on 
a  peculiarly  godless  expedition,  and  was  present  when  Panama, 
Portobello,  and  Carthagena  were  taken.  This  mariner  was  to 
guide  them  to  the  promising  havens  of  Golden  Island.  By 
October  30  they  anchored  off  the  Gulf  of  Darien,  and  their 
circle  of  acquaintances  was  enriched  by  a  few  very  sophisticated 
Indians,  who  spoke  pretty  good  Spanish,  a  little  English,  and 
drank  like  fishes.  The  good  old  days  of  discovery  were  over ; 
these  were  not  "shy  trafifickers " :  like  the  dark  Iberians  who 
dealt  with  the  Sidonians,  they  slept  off  their  liquor  on  board 
the  S^  Andrew.  They  said  they  were  at  war  with  the  Most 
Catholic  King,  and  were  made  happy  by  a  gift  of  old  hats,  penny 
glasses,  and  knives.  The  bloom  of  romance  had  faded  from 
the  Peak  in  Darien.  Soon  a  "  Captain  Andreas "  came :  he 
was  a  native  official  under  Spain,  but  was  pleased  to  learn  that 
the  Scots  would  undersell  the  Spaniards,  and,  if  necessary,  would 
fight  them.  A  Frenchman  arrived  who  dissipated  some  myths 
of  lands  of  gold  :  the  nearest  gold  mines  were  worked  by  Spaniards. 
The  captains  or  chiefs  of  the  tribes  were  sometimes  "  Indian 
clergymen "  (medicine-men),  sometimes  bore  Spanish  sceptres  of 
command,  silver-tipped  sticks,  and  always  had  Spanish  Christian 
names.  One  chief  could  read  and  write  very  well.  In  short, 
the  Scots  had  come  into  a  place  undeniably  within  the  Spanish 
sphere  of  influence.  Nevertheless,  Captain  Andreas  was  given  a 
neatly  engrossed  commission  under  the  Company,  and  "a  hearty 
glass."  The  committee  of  seven  councillors,  appointed  at  home, 
split  into  two  parties  on  arrival,  and,  by  an  almost  Athenian 
stretch  of  jealousy,  a  new  president  was  appointed  in  each 
succeeding  week. 

By  December  i  2  the  Spaniards  knew  all  about  the  new-comers, 
who  set  about  fortifying  "a  very  crabbed  hold,"  in  a  haven 
whereof  Paterson  seems  to  have  learned  nothing,  but  which  they 
found  convenient  for  their  purpose.  In  the  same  month  a 
colonist  wrote  that  so  far  the  climate  was  temperate  and  as 
healthy  as  could  be  expected.  There  was  abundance  of  good 
water,  and  of  excellent  fish,  fowl,  and  wild  hogs ;  venison  was 
thought  likely  to  be  found,  "  monkeys  and  baboons  are  the  best 
and    choicest    that    we    have     hitherto    met    with."       Apparently 


68  ENCOUNTER  WITH   SPAIN   (1699). 

monkeys  and  baboons  turned  out  to  be  the  staple  of  the  native 
food-supply,  otherwise  the  colonists  would  not  have  been  starved, 
as  they  were.^^ 

All  this  time  an  English  captain,  Long,  with  a  general  roving 
commission,  was  cruising  in  these  regions.  He  expected  the 
French  to  make  a  bid  for  them  in  the  confusion  which,  as 
diplomatists  foresaw,  would  follow  on  the  death  of  the  childless 
and  half  imbecile  Charles  II.  of  Spain.  He  visited  the  Scots 
and  found  1200  proper  men,  in  good  health,  and  secure  in  the 
very  crabbed  hold.  Long  left  them,  and  thought  good  to  set 
up  the  English  flag,  with  four  men  to  retain  the  whole  country 
for  England.  Not  that  he  hated  the  Scots,  "  I  am  a  lover  of 
them,  .  .  .  but  what  I  have  done  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  da 
for  my  master,  as  they  thought  to  do  for  theirs  " — the  Company. 
The  Governor  of  Carthagena  wished  to  assail  the  Scots  at  once,^ 
but  the  Admiral  of  the  Spanish  fleet  said  that  he  would  await 
royal  orders :  the  Scots  had  not  invaded  Spanish  ports,  and  he 
knew  not  the  territorial  rights  and  wrongs  in  the  case.  This 
report  gave  Captain  Long,  and  then  he  went  on  a  treasure  hunt, 
looking  for  pieces  of  eight  and  for  wrecks  of  the  plate-bearing 
galleons.^** 

On  February  6,  1699,  swords  were  crossed  with  Spain,  or 
rather  shots  were  fired.  A  party  of  Scots  aided  a  native  chieftain, 
Captain  Pedro,  and  drove  a  Spanish  party  into  the  hills :  the 
Scots  lost  two  men  killed  and  twelve  wounded.  Courteous 
notes  passed  between  the  Spanish  Governor  of  Santa  Maria  on 
one  side,  and,  as  the  Don  said,  "  the  Illustrious  Council  of 
Caledonia,  whom  God  preserve  many  years,  in  Fort  St  Andrew," 
on  the  other.  But  the  colony  had  few  provisions,  except 
monkeys  and  baboons,  and  sent  their  ship.  The  Dolphin,  to- 
Barbadoes  for  supplies.  They  were  not  likely  to  get  them  from' 
an  English  colony,  as  they  had  no  credit,  or  insufficient  credit, 
but  The  Dolphin  struck  a  rock,  and  was  forced  to  run  into  Car- 
thagena for  repairs.  The  men  were  imprisoned,  the  ship  was 
seized,  and  on  March  1 1  the  Council  sent  to  remonstrate.  If  all 
the  captives  were  not  restored,  the  Council  declared  reprisals, 
and  they  forwarded  a  copy  of  the  Act  of  June  25,  1695. 
The  Governor  of  Carthagena,  not  duly  impressed  by  this  august 
document,  tore  it  up,  and  called  the  Scots  "rogues  and  pirates."^ 
They    instantly   set    about    making    reprisals,    while    Paterson    in- 


SCOTTISH   PRISONERS  OF   SPAIN   (1699).  69 

formed  the  Council  of  a  discovery  of  French  designs  on  the 
colony.  As  for  the  Scottish  prisoners  at  Carthagena,  they  were 
sent  to  Seville,  condemned  to  death,  and  lay  in  irons  till  Sept- 
ember 1700.  The  Spanish  Ambassador  carried  his  plaint  against 
them  to  William  (May  1699);  and  as  the  Scots  now  seized  an 
English  trading  vessel,  it  seemed  that  the  colony  of  Caledonia 
was  at  war,  or  on  the  verge  of  war,  with  three  of  the  four  great 
naval  Powers. 

Meanwhile  from  home  but  scant  supplies  had  come,  it  was 
a  year  of  dearth  (King  William's  years  were  long  remembered 
for  famine  and  diseases),  there  were  no  reinforcements :  the 
rainy  season  and  fever  arrived,  and  Beeston,  the  Governor  of 
Jamaica,  issued  a  Proclamation  forbidding  English  colonists  to 
supply  the  Scots,  or  hold  any  communication  with  them,  "as 
they  will  answer  the  contempt  of  his  Majesty's  command  to 
the  contrary  at  their  utmost  peril"  (April  8,  1699).  This 
terrible  order  was  issued  before  England  could  have  heard  of 
the  affair  of  Carthagena  and  the  war  between  Spain  and  Cale- 
donia.^^ Government  later  disavowed  the  Proclamation,  and 
Beeston  himself  wrote  (December  14,  1700),  "I  could  not  for- 
bear thinking  that  the  Scots  had  but  uneasy  measures."  *°  In 
June  1699  disease  and  death  and  anarchy  prevailed  at  Darien. 
There  was  no  head,  Paterson  was  powerless,  all  was  confusion, 
and  not  a  line  had  been  received  from  the  Company  in  Scotland. 
The  Company  had  recently  drawn  up  rules,  rather  late  in  the 
day,  for  the  Government  of  a  colony  that,  before  the  rules 
could  reach  it,  had  ceased  to  exist.  In  the  first  place,  the 
"commands  of  Holy  Scripture  are  to  have  the  full  force  and 
effect  of  laws  within  this  colony," — a  crazy  observation.  There 
were  thirty-three  special  applications  of  the  general  text.  Ships 
were  freighted  and  presents  were  sent  "  to  the  chief  ladies " 
(native),  but  all  was  too  late.^^  In  May  and  August  reinforce- 
ments were  despatched,  but  in  June  the  survivors  of  the  colony 
had  fled,  and  the  expedition  of  May,  arriving  in  August,  found 
the  colony  a  desert  wilderness.  The  new-comers,  for  the  most 
part,  sailed  off  to  Jamaica.  After  a  fearful  voyage  of  two  months, 
in  which  hundreds  of  men  died,  the  two  vessels  of  the  original 
settlers  drifted  to  Sandy  Hook,  where  they  received  the  most 
timid  and  dilatory  hospitality.  Paterson  seemed  to  be  dying, 
but   by  November  he   was   in   Edinburgh.     The   Sf  Andreiv  was 


yo  THE  COLONY  DESERTED  (1699). 

not  better  treated  at   Port   Royal  than  the  other  two  vessels  at 
New  York. 

The  third  expedition  with  four  ships,  carrying  our  old  coven- 
anting friend,  Mr  Sheild  of  '  The  Hind  let  Loose,'  another 
preacher,  and  1300  men,  was  on  its  way  with  instructions  for 
erecting  a  presbytery  and  everything  handsome  at  Darien,  and 
with  a  worker  in  fine  gold  (of  which  there  was  none),  when  the 
Company  received  mournful  colonial  letters  of  April  21.  They 
replied  in  a  scolding  despatch,  and  added  the  news  that  the  English 
were  to  boycott  the  Scottish  colonies,  and  that  all  Powers  were 
hostile.  The  directors  ought  to  have  seen  that  the  situation  of 
their  colony  was  impossible.  As  they  wrote,  letters  from  the 
stranded  and  starving  adventurers  at  New  York  and  Sandy  Hook 
were  on  their  way.  By  September  1 9  the  Company,  long  anxiously 
sceptical  about  the  bad  tidings,  were  convinced  that  Darien  had 
been  deserted,  "shamefully  and  dishonourably,"  as  they  wrote  to 
•'the  original  Council  at  New  York"  (October  10).  The  new 
expedition  of  relief  found  nobody  to  relieve  save  a  few  men  re- 
turned from  New  York  under  Captain  Drummond.  "The  site 
marked  out  for  the  proud  capital  which  was  to  have  been  the  Tyre, 
the  Venice,  the  Amsterdam  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  over- 
grown with  jungle,  and  inhabited  only  by  the  sloth  and  the 
baboon."  Drummond  and  the  new-comers  were  soon  at  odds, 
and  all  was  confusion  and  despondency. 

So  ended  the  first  expedition  with  its  sequel,  and  to  this  extent 
had  the  promised  "Authority  of  his  Majesty"  protected  and  en- 
couraged his  Scottish  subjects.  To  be  sure,  his  Majesty  seems 
to  have  been  unaware  of  the  promise  made  in  his  name. 

Mr  Borland,  the  colleague  of  Mr  Sheild,  in  attendance  on  the 
next  expedition,  seems  to  have  relied  on  the  royal  promise.  From 
Boston  (Massachusetts),  on  the  way  to  Darien  (September  19), 
he  wrote  advising  the  Company  "to  address  his  Majesty  for  some 
ships  of  war.  .  .  .  We  hear  that  the  English  are  likely  to  be  con- 
cerned in  the  settlement  and  all."^'-  The  chance  of  English 
co-partnership,  indeed,  was  the  only  hope  for  escape  from  a 
second  ruin.  Borland  described  the  first  settlers  as  "a  viperous 
brood  that  neither  fear  God  nor  regard  man,  .  .  .  Jacobites,  Papists, 
and  Atheists.  .  .  .  There  was  no  room  for  God's  worship,  nor  time 
for  His  service,  even  on  His  own  day,  where,  if  any  durst  peep 
to  complain   thereof,   they  were    hissed   at   as   impudent  turbulent 


THE    NEW   EXPEDITION    (1699).  7 1 

Whigs."  43  It  was  natural  that  adventurous  young  Scots  of  1698 
should  be  Jacobites.  Messrs  Borland  and  Sheild,  of  the  extreme 
left  of  the  Kirk,  were  not  in  tune  with  their  own  detachment  of 
gentlemen  adventurers  :  their  stipends  were  not,  apparently  could 
not  be,  paid,  and  there  was  an  entire  lack  of  godly  elders  for  the 
Darien  Presbytery. 

The  new  colony  seems  mainly  to  have  lived  on  shipboard ; 
intestine  quarrels  were  fierce  and  complex ;  the  supposed  silver  ore 
of  the  region  proved  to  be  copper  ;  the  "  gold,  very  thick  here, 
proves  really  nothing  at  all  but  slimy  stuff,  ...  of  the  dust  or 
ore,  not  one  grain."  (December  23/29,  1699.)  Huts  were  built  in 
February  1700,  but  the  settlers  had  not  ;!^5o  worth  of  vendible 
goods;  provisions  or  practicable  credit  for  money  must  be  despatched 
from  Scotland.  Captain  Alexander  Campbell  of  Fonab,  a  trusty 
soldier,  had  been  sent  out  by  the  directors  in  October  1699, 
followed  by  a  vessel  laden  with  provisions.  The  Speedy  JReturn,  which 
became  famous  for  not  returning  in  a  later  year.  Campbell  heard 
of  a  Spanish  expedition  against  the  colony  concentrated  on  the 
farther  side  of  the  Isthmus,  at  Tubalcanti.  He  mustered  his 
fighting-men ;  all  were  not  in  love  with  war ;  one,  probably  to 
tease  the  militant  Sheild,  maintained  that  the  idolatrous  Spaniards 
were  in  the  right  (as  they  really  were),  and  that  to  attack  them  was 
wicked  !  Sheild  found  that  the  Knoxian  Book  of  Discipline,  with 
its  rule  that  preachers  should  be  obeyed  implicitly,  was  obsolete  in 
the  Spanish  Main. 

However,  Fonab  had  brave  adventurers  enough.  After  a  three 
days'  march  across  the  mountains,  he  charged  the  palisades  of  the 
Spanish  fort,  cleared  out  the  foe  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  and 
drove  them  into  the  jungle.  The  colony  now  heard  (February 
23,  1700)  of  an  attack  to  be  made  against  them  by  sea,  but 
were  full  of  hope.'**  The  end  was  that  the  Council  of  the  colony 
surrendered  to  the  Spaniards,  who  surrounded  them  by  sea  and 
land.  Scotland  had  just  heard  of,  and  had  begun  to  celebrate, 
Fonab's  victory  when  this  crushing  news  arrived.  The  riotous 
character  of  the  celebration  will  later  be  described.  The  Company 
did  not  expire,  it  had  still  a  romantic  stroke  to  deal  at  the  English, 
but  the  money  was  gone,  the  men  were  scattered  or  were  dead  : 
since  Flodden  or  Pinkie  the  nation  had  not  reeled  under  so  heavy 
a  loss,  a  loss  of  money  and  of  prestige.  One  vessel  of  the  Com- 
pany's tiny  fleet  engaged  in  the  West  African  trade  had  orders  to 


72  THE  COLONY  SURRENDERS  (1700). 

defy  even  English  vessels  which  might  interfere,  if  William's  orders 
for  interference  were  not  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  for  Scotland. 
Now  Spain  had  taken  up  the  glove  thrown  down  by  the  reckless 
Company — and  all  was  over. 

Of  shouting  and  murmuring  against  England  and  William  there 
had  been  much,  and  more,  naturally,  was  to  come,  though  the 
king's  character  was  treated  with  more  civility  than  Jacobites  would 
have  wished.  Even  moderate  writers  of  pamphlets  remarked  that 
Scotland,  when  her  interests  collided  with  those  of  England,  had, 
in  fact,  no  king,  no  royal  guidance  or  support.  If  things  continued 
thus,  Scotland  would  not  lack  friends :  she  had  an  ancient  ally  not 
unwilling  to  renew  the  old  League — France. 

We  now  take  up  the  thread  of  public  affairs  in  Scotland  during 
the  period  of  the  colony.  When  Seafield,  as  President,  met  the 
Estates  in  July  1698,  he  was  much  pleased  by  his  reception  and 
popularity.  But  in  the  same  month  there  was  an  inconvenience 
unusual  in  Scotland, — drought,  short  straw,  an  ill  appearance  of  the 
crops.*^  So  Polwarth,  now  Earl  of  Marchmont,  and  Commissioner, 
reports.  "Almost  a  famine,  appearance  of  an  extraordinary  bad 
crop,"  says  Seafield.  This  was  one  cause  of  the  slackness  in  pro- 
visioning the  first  Darien  colony.  Tullibardine  was  active  in 
opposing  supply.  Seafield  had  to  employ  that  useful  old  cry, 
danger  from  the  Jacobites.  Annandale  deserted  Tullibardine, 
opposition  was  checked  by  personal  greed  of  office,  supply  was 
passed.  The  Burgh  members  were  won  by  the  Provost  of  Edin- 
burgh, but  there  were  troublesome  petitions  in  favour  of  the 
Company.  Her  first  colony  had  just  sailed,  and  Seafield  says 
that  it  is  backed  out  of  patriotism,  though  "most  people  here 
believe  it  will  not  succeed  so  well  as  is  expected."  The  success 
of  Ciovernment,  so  far,  "  looks  like  a  dream,"  says  Argyll,  who, 
of  course,  had  the  old  feud  to  wreak  on  Tullibardine  in  the  new 
Parliamentary  way.  The  affairs  of  the  Company  were  debated  after 
the  king  had  got  his  business  done,  on  August  i.  Tweeddale  and 
Tullibardine  were  strong  for  the  Company  against  William's  agents, 
who  discouraged  subscribers  abroad.  Seafield  replied  that  William 
had  bidden  his  agents  abandon  opposition,  but  the  Company  asked 
for  much  more,  including  the  use  of  two  frigates.  Primrose  of 
Dalmeny,  a  man  of  great  estate,  had  been  very  useful;  Seafield 
asked  for  a  Viscountship  for  him.  The  family  had  prospered 
greatly  in  a  century  since  one  of  them   corresponded  with  Cecil. 


SIMON    OF   LOVAT.  73 

The  Club  was  still  regarded  as  not  extinct,  or  as  revived,  under 
TuUibardine.  Dalrymple,  now  Lord  Stair,  was  advised  not  to  take 
his  seat  in  Parliament,  though  encouraged  by  "the  Club  party." ^^ 
The  semi-Jacobite,  Arran,  was  made  Duke  of  Hamilton,  and  was 
later  to  be  tempted  to  claim  the  Scottish  Crown  for  himself,  as  next 
heir,  setting  aside  the  Prince  of  Wales,  born  in  1688.  Now  first 
appears  the  famous  Simon  Fraser,  later  Lord  Lovat,  executed  in 
1746.  He  had  abducted  a  bride,  vi  et  armis,  and  had  held  a 
muster  of  the  Erasers,  his  clan.  The  circumstances  will  be  re- 
counted later.  Meanwhile,  Argyll  advised  Carstares  that  Simon 
should  not  be  put  at  for  this,  "  for  if  one  begin,  all  the  Highlands 
will  in  ten  days  fly  together  to  arms."  As  for  his  abduction  of  "  the 
Dowager  of  Lovat,"  Simon  disclaimed  all  "  barbarity,"  and  would 
stand  his  trial.  Atholl  was  pressing  the  Frasers  hard,  and  Lovat 
wished  that  the  estates  of  both  clans  were  set  as  a  prize  of  battle, 
"  the  result  of  a  fair  day  between  him  and  me."  "  We  will  not  be 
commanded  and  oppressed  by  any  strangers  ...  in  this  end  of 
the  world."  There  is  more  than  a  hint,  in  the  clan's  letter  to 
Argyll,  of  the  desirability  of  a  king,  not  a  "  stranger,"  in  Scotland.*^ 

In  Scotland  (1699)  there  was  great  discontent  about  the  inter- 
ference of  William's  agent  at  Hamburg,  Sir  Paul  Ricaut,  with 
foreign  subscriptions  to  the  India  Company.  An  address  to 
William  in  "a  style  which  will  not  please"  was  intended,  and 
the  proclamations  of  English  Colonial  Governors  against  dealings 
with  the  Darien  adventurers  caused  much  excitement,  the 
preachers  praying  heartily  for  the  success  of  the  second  expedi- 
tion (August  1699).  "The  nation  is  bent  one  way,  and  the 
king  is  of  another  persuasion,"  wrote  the  Lord  Advocate.  On 
the  Duke  of  Hamilton's  arrival  at  his  home,  the  preachers,  the 
Directors  of  the  Company,  and  he,  with  the  news  of  the  deser- 
tion of  their  colonists  fresh  in  their  minds,  met,  and  were  eager 
for  an  Address  to  William.  In  November,  Lord  Basil  Hamilton 
was  desired  to  carry  the  Address  to  Court.  In  January  1700 
there  was  a  demand  for  William's  appearance  in  the  new  Parliament, 
where  the  discontented  meant  to  use  much  freedom.  The  king 
would  not  come  down,  would  not  receive  Lord  Basil,  but  "  would 
think  of  their  demands."^** 

On  March  25,  1700,  William  so  far  yielded  as  to  receive 
an  Address  presented  by  Tweeddale,  but  replied  curtly  that  he 
had    fixed    May    15    for    the    meeting   of   Parliament,    and    stood 


74  SCOTTISH   INDIGNATION  (1700). 

by  his  resolution.  He  then  turned  his  back  and  walked  out.*** 
The  Scottish  Parliament  met,  and  Queensberry,  the  Commis- 
sioner, in  face  of  a  proposed  resolution  maintaining  the  legal 
character  of  the  Darien  settlement,  said  that  he  had  a  bad 
cold,  must  consult  the  king,  and  adjourned.  Discontents  in- 
creased,— the  revived  Club  used  to  meet  at  Steel's  tavern,  in 
June,  and  discuss  a  fresh  National  Address  to  William.  "  It 
looks  very  like  Forty- One,"  the  rising  against  the  man  Charles 
Stuart,  wrote  Colonel  Ferguson,  brother  of  the  notorious  Ferguson 
the  Plotter  (June  15,  1700).  The  loth  of  June,  the  birthday  of 
the  Prince  of  Wales,  was  lustily  celebrated  at  Edinburgh.  There 
were  threats  that  if  William  would  not  declare  Darien  a  legal 
settlement,  a  Convention  of  Estates  would  be  called.  "  We  are  all 
in  flame,  .  .  .  the  fuel  comes  both  from  France  and  England."  ^*^ 
Letters  from  the  Scottish  prisoners  in  Spain  increased  the  national 
anger,  and  on  June  20  unauthorised  illuminations  to  applaud 
Fonab's  victory  over  the  Spaniards  were  being  prepared  ;  Hamilton 
attended  a  meeting  at  Pat  Steel's  tavern,  and  the  Lord  Advocate 
trembled  for  his  window-panes.^^  In  fact,  the  mob  did  break 
windows  not  illuminated,  though  the  statement  that  they  "de- 
stroyed five  thousand  pounds'  worth  of  glass"  must  be  a  wild 
exaggeration.  The  Tolbooth  was  broken  open,  prisoners  were 
released,  gentlemen  with  drawn  swords  protected  the  rioters. 
Murray  of  Philiphaugh  wrote  from  Edinburgh  that  if  William 
went  abroad  he  would  imperil  his  hold  on  his  kingdom.  In 
August,  when  some  of  the  rioters  were  put  in  the  pillory,  the 
mob  threw  white  roses  to  them. 

Though  the  news  of  the  colony's  capitulation  to  the  Spaniards 
followed  hard  on  the  heels  of  the  tidings  of  the  triumph  of  Fonab, 
the  public  persisted  in  the  desire  to  be  revenged.''^  While  the  mob 
threw  bouquets  to  rioters,  and  bade  the  bellringers  of  St  Giles'  toll 
to  the  tune  of  "  Wilful  Willie,"  and  released,  among  other  denizens 
of  the  Tolbooth,  some  Eraser  prisoners  locked  up  for  the  Lovat 
misdeeds — the  Club  was  for  boycotting  goods  that  brought  duties 
to  the  Exchequer.  The  death  of  the  Duke  of  Gloucester,  son  ot 
the  Princess  of  Denmark  (later  Queen  Anne),  a  spirited  little  boy 
of  popular  promise,  was  no  sorrow  to  the  Jacobites. 

Meanwhile  the  leading  politicians  were  in  alarm,  especially 
Murray  of  Philiphaugh,  never  noted  for  courage,  whose  letters  are 
of  the  blackest  pessimism.     Argyll  and  Tullibardine  pursued  their 


PARLIAMENT   (1700-1701).  75 

ancestral  feud,  not  with  fire  and  sword,  but  with  intrigue  and  back- 
biting,— Argyll  working  in  the  Lovat  interest  against  the  House 
of  AthoU.  This  Argyll  had  no  more  taste  than  his  grandfather, 
the  Marquis,  for  a  duel,  and,  after  a  quarrel  over  a  horse-race  with 
Crawford,  apologised  on  receiving  a  challenge,  which  the  next 
Argyll,  Red  John  of  the  Battles,  would  probably  have  accepted 
joyfully.  Argyll  had  a  scheme  for  "  buying  some,  purchasing 
others,  and  making  some  places  vacant  for  others,"  so  as  to  carry 
on  the  King's  Government."  ^^  Government  struggled  on  through 
August,  working  by  aid  of  secret  service  money.  The  opposition, 
the  "  Country  Party,"  consisted  of  Jacobites,  malcontents  not 
Jacobite,  "and  honest  Presbyterians  in  the  African  interest,"  solely 
concerned  with  promoting  trade.  Only  the  Jacobites  were  in 
favour  of  doing  away  with  the  standing  army ;  the  malcontents 
looked  for  a  change  of  Ministers,  and  the  spoils  of  office  for 
themselves ;  the  trading  party  were  the  most  numerous,  and 
might  be  won  over  by  Government.^*  This  last  party  were  busy 
in  trying  to  raise  ^300,000  for  a  reconstructed  colonial,  manu- 
facturing, and  fishing  scheme,  on  the  lines  of  the  unlucky  Act 
of  1695. 

A  new  Address  to  the  King  was  sent  up  in  September ;  Queens- 
berry  ventured  to  face  the  Estates  in  October  29,  1700;  and  the 
Royal  Message  was  not  so  sullen  as  the  temper  which  William 
had  for  long  shown  to  the  perplexing  kingdom  which  he  must 
have  wished  well  under  the  sea.  With  his  great  European  schemes 
for  paralysing  France,  he  always  found,  like  the  dying  Henry  V., 
"a  Scotsman  in  his  beard."  The  king  would  let  all  legislation 
pass  for  the  improvement  of  trade,  but  acknowledge  the  legality 
of  the  Darien  colony  he  would  not ;  for  reasons  of  international 
policy  he  could  not,  without  facing  a  world  in  arms.^^  "  Now  that 
the  state  of  that  affair "  (Darien)  "  is  quite  altered,  you  will  rest 
satisfied  with  these  plain  reasons."  But  the  Scots  would  not  rest 
satisfied  with  the  logic  of  facts.  Acts  for  prohibiting  importation 
of  foreign  and  exportation  of  domestic  goods  were  introduced : 
Scotland  was  to  try  the  policy  of  "  retaliation."  Supplies  for  the 
army  were  voted  only  till  the  great  business  of  Darien  should  be 
discussed. ^^  On  January  13,  i  701,  it  was  unanimously  voted  that 
the  Darien  settlement  was  a  lawful  colony.  "Long  jangles"  on 
constitutional  niceties  accompanied  each  step  of  the  business. ^^ 
"There  were  very   pretty  discourses    for    a    long   time,"    says    an 


y^  WILLIAM   DESIRES   UNION   (1700). 

appreciative  listener.  Was  an  Act  embodying  grievances  and 
remonstrances  to  be  passed,  or  merely  an  Address  to  the  King? 
The  Company  wanted  an  Act ;  milder  men  preferred  an  Address, 
which  did  not  so  fully  commit  Scotland  to  an  impossible  policy 
of  war  with  Spain,  if  not  with  half  of  Christendom.  An  Act,  it 
was  argued,  would  not  be  touched  with  the  sceptre  and  passed. 
Stair  said  that  "  an  Act  here  was  but  a  decree  of  the  Baron 
Court,"  and,  being  rebuked  by  Hamilton,  made  matters  not  much 
better  by  explaining  that  "  none  sat  in  Parliament  but  Barons," 
and  the  representation  in  Scotland  was  feudal.  "  He  was  excused, 
but  desired  not  to  use  such  an  expression  again.  "^^  An  Address, 
not  an  Act,  was  carried  by  a  majority  of  twenty- four. ^^  The 
Address  asserted  the  Company's  "  complete  right,"  as  settlers  among 
natives  in  "  independent  and  absolute  freedom "  in  a  country 
"void  and  unoccupied"  by  Europeans.  They  complained  that 
they  had  been  encroached  upon  by  the  English  colonial  proclama- 
tions, and  been  treated  as  pirates  by  Spain.  They  asked  for  the 
royal  favour,  and  compensation  for  their  losses.*^ 

The  nervous  Murray  of  Philiphaugh  wrote  to  Carstares  that 
"  this  business  is  brought  to  as  happy  a  conclusion  as  could 
almost  be  wished  for,"  though  the  debate,  in  the  most  modern 
fashion,  had  been  attended  by  "a  mighty  incessant  noise." ^^  The 
unsympathetic  Commissioner  denounced  the  vivacities  of  the  House 
as  "unparliamentary  and  against  the  rules  of  all  society."  The 
House  had  been  most  excited  on  a  question  as  to  entering  the 
names  of  the  voters  on  both  sides  in  the  registered  proceedings  : 
this  was  done.  "  Debates,"  Philiohaugh  remarks,  "  lose  time, 
and  introduce  many  unnecessary  questions,"  and  he  obviously  pined 
for  the  good  old  days  of  the  Lords  of  the  Articles. 

The  country  was  not  less  excited,  and  the  hopes  of  the  Jacobites 
rose  as  William  became  more  and  more  unpopular.  He  could  not 
or  would  not  come  to  Scotland,  where  curious  inquirers  asked, 
"Of  what  religion  would  he  be — north  of  Tweed?"  In  the 
previous  year  (February  1700)  he  had  recommended  to  the  English 
House  of  Lords  a  scheme  of  Union,  manifestly  the  only  method 
of  preventing  those  quarrels  between  the  two  countries  in  which 
France  and  the  Jacobites  saw  their  opportunity.  There  was  a  risk 
that  Scotland,  as  of  old,  would  soon  have  a  Stuart  king  and  a  P'rench 
ally.  William  now  declared  himself  to  be  "  very  sensibly  touched  " 
by  the  disaster  of  the  Scots,  and  recommended  the  Lords  to  think 


DEATH   OF   WILLIAM   (1702).  "J J 

of  "  some  happy  expedient "  for  union. ^^  The  Lords  in  England 
sent,  as  "of  great  consequence,"  a  Bill  concerning  union  to  the 
Commons,  who  seized  on  the  phrase  as  an  insult  to  their  dignity, 
forsooth, — their  commercial  jealousy  of  Scotland  thus  picking  "a 
German  quarrel."  The  Bill  for  union  was  therefore  rejected.  The 
Darien  Company  continued  to  agitate  and  draw  up  petitions,  but 
no  advance  was  made  towards  granting  their  desires. 

On  February  20,  1702,  "the  little  gentleman  in  velvet,"  as 
the  Jacobites  called  the  mole,  did  his  fatal  work.  In  the  park 
of  Hampton  Court  William's  horse  stumbled  over  a  mole-hill  : 
in  his  fall  the  King  broke  his  collar-bone,  and  in  his  failing  health 
the  accident  proved  mortal.  On  February  28  he  sent  to  the 
Commons  a  message,  "in  the  most  earnest  manner  recommending 
the  consideration  "  of  a  scheme  of  union.  He  was  known  to  be 
dying  on  March  7,  when  the  subject  of  union  was  to  be  debated : 
it  was  not  touched  upon  ;  and,  after  hours  of  agony,  William  passed 
to  his  rest. 

Of  Scotland  he  had  scarcely  been  king  :  the  affairs  of  Hol- 
land, of  England,  of  the  struggle  against  France,  had  diverted  his 
attention  from  the  land  which  he  never  saw,  which  no  king  of 
England  was  to  see  for  a  hundred  and  twenty  years.  In  Car- 
stares  he  had  an  excellent  adviser,  but  Carstares  was  not  always 
at  his  side,  and  is  not  known  to  have  uttered  one  sentence  about 
Glencoe,  while  he  could  not  possibly  prevent  the  obscure  intrigues 
which  must  have  made  possible  the  introduction  and  "  touching  " 
of  the  Company's  Act  of  1695.  A  few  months  before  William's 
death,  James  had  gone  before  him  "down  the  night-wandering 
way,"  and  Louis  XIV.  had  recognised  as  King  of  England,  Scotland, 
and  Ireland,  the  Prince  of  Wales,  James  III.  and  VIII.  In  him, 
though  a  boy  of  thirteen,  all  parties  had  recognised  a  more 
dangerous  claimant  of  the  throne  than  his  resigned  and  outworn 
father.  But  James  II.,  in  youth,  would  have  been  infinitely  more 
dangerous  than  was  the  son  of  his  sorrows  :  a  better  man  than 
his  father,  but  a  futile  leader  of  a  forlorn  hope. 


78  NOTES. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER    III. 

^  JMinutes  in  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.     Appendix,  p.  98. 

2  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  366. 

3  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  232. 
^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  376,  377. 

■^  See  Report,  in  ArCormick,  pp.  252,  253. 

^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  408. 

'  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  421,  422. 

^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  424,  425. 

^  Highland  Papers.     Cf.  Paget,  Paradoxes  and  Puzzles,  pp.  74,  75. 
"  Hill  Burton,  vii.  413,  414. 
"  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  386,  387, 

^2  State  Trials,   xiii.   918-938.     Macaulay  on   Scotland.     Articles  from   '  The 
Witness.'     Thomas  Aikenhead,  by  John  Gordon  :  London,  1856. 

^•^  Mr  Mathieson  says  that  the  elder  Paterson  was  owner  of  his  small  estate 
(Scotland  and  the  Union,  p.  25). 

"  The  Birthplace  and  Parentage  of  William  Paterson.     By  William  Pagan. 
1865. 
^^  Bannister,  Writings  of  William  Paterson,  ii.  236. 
^'  Bannister,  ii.  pp.  xcviii,  xcix. 
^^  Bannister,  i.  117,  118. 

^^  Commons' Journals,  x.  631.     Jan.  18,  1692. 
^'  Bannister,  ii.  255. 

2"  Anderson's  Origin  of  Commerce,  ii.  206.     Writings  of  William  Paterson,  5. 
p.  xxxiii  (Bannister). 

^  Writings  of  William  Paterson,  ii.  261. 

^  Dalrymple,  ii.  96. 

^  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  303. 

2*  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  270. 

^  Macaulay,  iv.  489. 

^  Story,  Carstares,  p.  251. 

^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  ix.  377,  381. 

■■*  Commons' Journals,  xi.  401. 

^'  Lords' Journals,  Dec.  13,  1695. 

^^  Commons' Journals,  Jan.  21,  1696,  p.  400. 

"  Burton,  viii.  29-32. 

^  Darien  Papers,  11. 

^  Darien  Papers,  15. 

**  Ogilvy  to  Carstares,  July  24,  1697.     M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  321. 

^^  Bannister's  William  Paterson,  ii.  258-261. 

^'  Darien  Papers,  p.  54. 

•"  Darien  Papers,  p.  80. 

^'  Darien  Papers,  pp.  81-84. 

•'*  Darien  Papers,  p.  303.     Note. 

*"  Darien  Papers,  p.  304. 

*^  Letter  of  April  15. 

*^  Darien  Papers,  p.  155. 


NOTES. 

*^  Darien  Papers,  p.  158. 

■"  Darien  Papers,  pp.  245-252. 

'"'  M'Cormick,  Carstarc^,  pp.  384,  385. 

"•^  Seafitld  to  Carstares,  August  20,  1698,     M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  426. 

■*^  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  431-436. 

■*^  Darien  Papers,  p.  280. 

■•*  Darien  Papers,  pp.  283,  284. 

*"  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  527,  528. 

*^  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  533. 

*2  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  543,  547,  615. 

*^  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  p.  599. 

^■*  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  626,  628. 

^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  x.  201,  202. 

*^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  x,  234. 

^'  Hume  of  Crossrig's  Diary,  p.  51. 

^8  Hume  of  Crossrig's  Diary,  p.  52. 

«»  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  x.  246,  248. 

«"  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  x.  248,  250. 

^'  M'Cormick,  Carstares,  pp.  689-691. 

^'-^  Lords' Journals,  Feb.  12,  1700. 


79 


8o 


CHAPTER    IV. 


THE     EVE     OF     UNION. 


1702-1705. 

Before  his  death  William  of  Orange  had  involved  his  kingdoms  in 
the  dynastic  feuds  of  Europe.  His  insatiable  hatred  of  France, 
the  Testament  by  which  the  spectral  Charles  II.  of  Spain  left  his 
crown  to  Philip  of  Anjou,  the  aggression  of  Louis  XIV.  on  the 
Spanish  Netherlands,  and  the  wayward  generosity  which  recognised 
the  Prince  of  Wales  as  King  of  England  on  the  death  of  James  II., 
were  so  many  provocations  to  William  and  to  Protestant  Whigs. 
The  Triple  Alliance  of  the  Empire,  England,  and  William's 
beloved  Holland,  concluded  in  September  1701,  was  to  be 
presently  followed  (May  1702)  by  a  declaration  against  France 
of  that  war  in  which  Marlborough  acquired  gold  and  laurels. 
The  Whigs  who  came  in  at  the  general  election  in  the  end  of 
1 701  were,  on  the  whole,  favourable  to  the  Union  with  Scot- 
land, while  at  the  moment  of  William's  death  the  Revolution 
Ministry  held  power  in  the  Northern  kingdom.  The  veteran  Whig 
and  Presbyterian,  Marchmont,  was  Chancellor ;  Queensberry,  now 
regarded  by  Cavaliers  as  "the  proto-rebel,"  was  Privy  Seal.  He 
was  a  man  of  agreeable  manners,  so  remote  from  avarice  that  he 
might  rather  be  called  lavish,  and  there  came  an  incident  in  his 
career  which  might  deserve  for  him,  as  for  Hamilton,  the 
Shakespearian  title  of  **  Duke  of  dark  corners."  Hyndford 
(Carmichael),  one  of  the  Secretaries  of  State,  was  of  Revolution 
principles ;  Seafield,  the  other  Secretary,  was  no  extremist ; 
Cockburn  of  Ormiston  was  staunch  to  the  ancient  Protestantism 
of  his  House;  and  the  Lord  Advocate,  Sir  James  Stewart,  had 
been  fickle  enough,  but  was  a  sad  good  Whig  at  heart.     All  of 


COMMISSION   OF   UNION   (1702).  81 

these  men  were  likely  to  be  in  favour  of  union,  but  in  England 
the  Tory  advisers  of  Anne  were  less  sweetly  reasonable  as  regarded 
Scottish  rights  and  claims  than  the  Whigs  were  inclined  to  be. 

The  accession  of  Queen  Anne  was  more  welcome  to  the 
Jacobites  than  to  the  Whiggish  Presbyterians  in  Scotland.  The 
queen  was  known  to  be  deeply  attached  to  the  Church  of  England, 
for  which  the  late  king  could  only  have  a  political  preference ; 
and,  now  she  was  childless,  she  certainly  in  her  heart  preferred 
the  claims  of  her  brother,  the  exiled  Prince  of  Wales,  to  those  of 
her  Protestant  German  kinsfolk  of  Hanover.  "  The  Cavaliers," 
writes  Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  who  sat  in  the  subsequent  Scottish 
Parliaments  till  the  Union  in  1707,  a  wealthy,  able,  and  sardonic 
Cavalier,  "  expected  mighty  things  from  her  :  the  Presbyterians  .  .  . 
were  more  upon  the  melancholick  and  dejected  air  than  usual," 
even, — for  the  Presbyterians  were  always  in  apprehension  of  popery 
and  prelacy.  The  preachers  thundered  in  the  old  way ;  their 
flocks  "must  be  ready  to  suffer  for  Christ's  cause — the  epithet 
they  gave  their  own." 

Anne,  meeting  her  first  English  Parliament,  requested  the 
House  to  consider  a  scheme  of  union,  the  more  necessary  as 
England,  Holland,  and  the  Emperor  were  about  to  declare  war 
against  France  and  Spain.  A  bitterly  discontented  Scotland  would 
be  a  heavy  weight  on  the  arms  of  England ;  but  how  the  dis- 
content was  to  be  soothed  among  Presbyterians  by  union  with 
a  country  of  prelatic  "  Baal  worshippers,"  or  among  Jacobites 
by  union  with  the  deadly  foe  of  France  and  of  the  rightful  king 
over  the  water,  was  not  obvious.  Compensation,  trade,  and 
security  for  her  own  colonies,  when  she  got  any,  was  what 
Scotland  desired.  However,  on  April  20,  1702,  despite  the 
arrogance  and  anti- Scottish  tone  of  the  Tory  speakers,  a  Bill 
for  nominating  a  Commission  to  discuss  the  Union  was  passed 
at  Westminster. 

Anne  (April  21)  wrote  a  letter  of  a  friendly  and  conciliatory 
kind  to  the  Scottish  Parliament.  She  was  concerned  to  maintain 
the  dignity  and  independence  of  their  ancient  kingdom,  and  to 
respect  its  laws  and  liberties  :  she  trusted  that  the  Scots  would 
reciprocate  the  desire  for  union  displayed  by  the  English 
Parliament.  She  deeply  regretted  the  losses  and  disasters  of 
Darien,  and  would  concur  in  any  reasonable  scheme  for  repair- 
ing them. 

VOL.   IV.  F 


82  A   NEW   PARLIAMENT   DEMANDED   (1702). 

As  funds  for  the  support  of  the  Army  in  Scotland  were  almost 
exhausted,  it  was  necessary  to  ask  money  from  a  Scottis'h 
Parliament  in  the  summer  of  this  year,  1702.  The  Cavaliers, 
under  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  naturally  urged  that  there  should 
be  an  appeal  to  the  country,  in  consequence  of  the  death  of  the 
late  king,  and  that  a  new  Parliament  should  be  chosen  in  place 
of  the  long  seated  "rump."  Hamilton,  Tweeddale,  Marischal, 
Rothes,  and  other  nobles  went  to  London  to  ask  Anne's  consent 
to  this  proposal.  But  a  Scottish  Act  of  1696  had  provided  that 
the  House,  if  in  session  at  the  moment,  might  sit  for  six  months 
after  a  king's  decease — namely,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  things 
quiet  and  securing  the  succession  in  the  Protestant  line.  If  not 
in  session,  the  Parliament  should  meet  for  these  purposes. 
Parliament  had  not  met,  and  Hamilton's  party  argued  that  a  new 
Parliament  should  now  be  chosen.  The  meeting  of  the  old 
Parliament  would  be  technically  illegal,  or  at  all  events  open  to 
doubt  and  cavil.  Queen  Anne,  either  in  hope  of  conciliating  the 
suspicious  Presbyterians  or  of  finding  the  old  Parliamentary  hands 
more  subservient  than  a  newly  elected  House,  declined  to  listen 
to  Hamilton,  and  summonses  were  issued  for  June  9. 

Hamilton  opened  the  debates  by  denouncing  the  legality  of  the 
Parliament,  and  with  seventy- nine  gentlemen  of  good  estate 
marched  out  of  the  House.  The  populace  expressed  approval  by 
cheering,  and  the  seceders  went  to  that  undignified  Mons  Sacer, 
the  Cross  Keys  Tavern.^  Of  a  hundred  and  ten  members  who 
remained,  Lockhart  avers  that  eighty  were  pensioners  or  placemen. 
The  seceders  sent  Blantyre  to  Queen  Anne  with  an  address  justi- 
fying their  proceedings  :  she  received  Blantyre,  but  would  not  look 
at  the  address. 

The  remnant  of  the  Rump  continued  to  sit,  passing  an  Act  in 
favour  of  their  own  legality.  The  country  met  this  in  the  spirit  of 
passive  resistance.  "Near  one-half  the  nation,"  says  Lockhart, 
refused  to  pay  the  taxes  voted,  and  this  measure  caused  anxiety 
in  England."  It  was  thought  that  Scotland  had  taken  a  Jacobite 
turn,  and  that  if  Anne's  command  to  Hamilton  to  come  to  town 
was  not  obeyed  the  Jacobites  were  to  blame. '"^  The  sitting  rem- 
nant of  Parliament  showed  their  loyalty  by  Acts  recognising  the 
queen's  authority  and  that  of  the  Kirk,  and  Sir  Alexander  Bruce 
was  expelled  the  House  for  saying  that  presbyterial  government  was 
inconsistent  with  monarchy. 


CHANGES   IN    ADMINISTRATION    (1702).  83 

As  the  House  was,  after  Bruce  had  been  expelled,  "  all  one  man's 
bairns,"  in  Lockhart's  homely  phrase, — that  is,  all  of  Revolution 
principles, — Marchmont,  against  Queensberry's  wish,  presented  a  Bill 
for  the  imposition  of  an  oath  abjuring  the  son  of  James  II.  March- 
mont ought  to  have  known  the  evils  of  abjuration  by  the  experience 
of  1685.  The  House  was  at  once  divided  :  matters  were  far  too 
uncertain  for  an  Act  of  this  kind,  and  "the  Pretender"  was  useful 
to  various  parties  in  turn  as  a  bugbear.  To  the  cause  of  Scotland 
he  was  a  valuable  card  :  by  keeping  the  question  of  the  succession 
to  the  Scottish  throne  open,  men  were  able,  they  thought,  to  put 
pressure  on  the  English  in  favour  of  their  claims  to  good  terms  in 
the  matter  of  the  Union.  Lockhart  says  that  Queensberry  had  no 
instructions  from  England  as  to  Marchmont's  proposal ;  but  he  was 
mistaken,  as  Murray  of  Philiphaugh  informed  Carstares.  "  His 
Grace  had  an  instruction  to  give  the  royal  assent  to  such  an  Act," 
but  found  that  it  was  a  cause  of  strife.  Some  openly  took  the  line 
that  England  would  become  careless  about  the  Union  if  they  had 
security  as  to  the  succession.  Marchmont's  Bill  received  a  first 
reading  in  defiance  of  Queensberry's  request  that  he  would  not 
introduce  it ;  so  Queensberry,  not  knowing  how  matters  might 
turn  out,  adjourned  the  Parliament  (June  20).*  "So  we  take  our 
leave  of  this  monstrous  Parliament,"  says  Lockhart,  "  which  from 
a  Convention  was  metamorphosed  and  transubstantiated  into  a 
Parliament,  and  when  dead  revived  again." 

The  politicians  hastened  to  London,  whence  Secretary  Johnstone 
(son  of  the  unhappy  Johnstone  of  Waristoun  the  Covenanter)  wrote 
to  Baillie  of  Jerviswood  that  "  the  inclination  of  the  Court  is  abso- 
lutely for  changes  "  in  the  Scottish  administration.  In  the  English 
Parliament  "  the  Whigs  reign  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  espouse  the 
bishops  :  the  Tories  reign  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  espouse 
the  lower  clergy"  (November  21).^  As  to  the  changes,  they  fell 
heavily  on  the  most  Presbyterian  of  the  Scottish  Government. 
Marchmont,  Melville,  Cockburn  of  Ormiston,  Leven  (commander  of 
Edinburgh  Castle),  and  Hyndford,  "were  all  laid  aside."  Queens- 
berry and  Tarbat,  who  was  dipped  in  Jacobitism,  were  Secretaries  of 
State  ;  AthoU  (late  Tullibardine)  held  the  Privy  Seal ;  the  Earl  of 
March  succeeded  Leven  in  the  Castle,  and  Seafield  was  made 
Chancellor,  while  Annandale  was  President  of  Council.  Seafield, 
originally  something  of  a  Jacobite,  had  long  served  William  III.,  and 
had  "trimmed  and  tricked  shamefully  in  the  affair  of  Darien,"  says 


84  COMMISSIONERS   OF   UNION    MEET  (1702). 

Lockhart.  He  was  "a  blank  sheet  of  paper  which  the  Court  might 
fill  up  with  what  they  pleased."  ^  This  was  the  character  of  most 
of  the  new  Ministry,  which  was  not  so  popular  as  the  old  with  the 
Presbyterians,  and  therefore  was  less  utterly  distasteful  to  Cavaliers. 

Meanwhile  the  queen  had  appointed  Commissioners  of  both 
kingdoms  to  discuss  the  Union.  Among  the  English  were  Notting- 
ham, Marlborough,  and  Robert  Harley  (later  Earl  of  Oxford),  a 
statesman  destined  to  enjoy  great  power  and  to  undergo  strange 
vicissitudes  of  policy  and  fortune.  On  the  Scottish  side  were, 
among  others,  Argyll,  Queensberry,  Stair,  and  the  provosts  of 
Edinburgh,  Glasgow,  Dundee,  and  Aberdeen.  They  first  met  on 
October  28,  1702;  on  November  20  the  preliminaries  were  ad- 
justed; on  December  14,  Anne,  in  a  very  brief  speech,  said  that 
she  hoped  the  Union  would  make  the  island  "more  formidable." 
The  meetings  of  the  Commissioners  only  proved  the  difficulties 
of  their  task.  Though  the  incendiary  question  of  religion  was 
not  touched,  matters  of  free  trade,  of  colonial  privileges,  and  of 
compensation  for  Darien  blocked  the  way,  and  the  Commissioners 
parted,  re  infeda,  on  February  3,  1703.  The  champions  of  the 
two  nations  had  only  been  feeling  each  other's  foils.  Much  bar- 
gaining of  a  rough  sort  had  to  be  done,  on  sea  and  land,  by  deeds 
and  speeches,  before  the  kingdoms  could  understand, — the  richer, 
how  little  would  be  accepted ;  the  poorer,  how  weak  was  its  power 
of  enforcing  its  demands.  Presbyterians  were  in  needless  alarm. 
On  February  13,  1703,  Johnstone  wrote  to  Baillie  of  Jerviswood 
that,  in  a  meeting  of  English  about  the  Union,  the  Archbishop  of 
York  had  said,  "  Now  is  the  time  for  restoring  Episcopacy  in  Scot- 
land," while  Rochester  and  Normanby  agreed  with  him,  and  Not- 
tingham "trimmed."^ 

While  Presbyterians  like  Johnstone  and  Jerviswood  terrified  each 
other  with  such  stories,  the  Cavaliers  would  drop  salt,  not  oil,  into 
the  sore  places  of  their  spirits.  Would  the  people  of  Zion,  they 
asked,  consent  to  a  union  with  prelatic  Moab, — even  England, 
where  the  mitre  was  already  pushing  with  its  horns  ?  Presbyterian 
voters,  looking  forward  to  the  approaching  general  election,  must 
have  felt  sorely  puzzled.  To  vote  for  Cavaliers  was,  indeed,  to 
postpone  or  prevent  union  with  a  prelatic  people,  but  it  was  also 
to  open  the  doors  to  a  popish  Pretender. 

As  this  general  election  produced  the  last  Scottish  Parliament, 
it  may  be  proper  here  to  consider  the  conditions  at  which  a  Scottish 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   SCOTS   PARLIAMENTS  (1427-1703).      85 

Parliament  had  arrived  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Spiritual  Estate 
in  the  Revolution  and  the  abolition  of  the  Lords  of  the  Articles." 
The  famous  Act  of  James  I.,  in  1427-28,  had  relieved  "the  small 
barons  and  free  tenants  "  of  the  duty  of  attending  Parliaments  and 
great  Councils,  provided  that  two  or  more  wise  men  of  each  shire 
were  chosen  at  the  head  court  of  the  sheriffdom  to  be  commis- 
sioners of  the  shire.  Each  shire  was  to  pay  the  expenses  of  its 
commissioners.  Meanwhile  Bishops,  Abbots,  Priors,  Dukes,  Earls, 
"  Lords  of  Parliament,"  and  Bannerets  were  summoned  by  royal 
precept.  The  burgh  aldermen,  baillies,  and  other  ofificers,  till  1469, 
appear  to  have  been  elected  in  a  popular  way,  "  with  multitude  and 
clamour  of  common,  simple  persons,"  till  November  1469.  It  was 
then  decided  that  the  old  town  council  shall  choose  the  new 
council,  and  that  both  together  shall  choose  their  parliamentary 
commissioner,  baillies,  and  so  on, — a  change  which  tended  natur- 
ally to  place  burgh  representation  in  Parliament  on  a  very  narrow 
basis. 

In  the  Regent  Moray's  Parliament  of  December  1567,  while 
Queen  Mary  was  a  prisoner  in  Lochleven  Castle,  an  Act  was 
passed  which  constituted  all  non-noble  county  freeholders  into  an 
elective  body,  privileged  to  choose  "  one  or  two  of  the  most 
qualified  and  wise  barons  within  the  shire "  to  represent  the  free- 
holders of  the  crown.  The  qualification  of  the  electors  and  the 
mode  of  election  were  left  rather  vague.  In  December  1585  the 
electors  were  to  be  holders  of  not  less  than  "  forty-shilling  land  in 
free  tenandry  held  of  the  king,"  and  resident  in  the  shire.  In 
July  1587  all  qualified  freeholders  of  each  shire,  not  being  prelates 
or  Lords  of  Parliament,  were  to  be  warned  to  be  present  at  county 
elections  at  the  first  head  court  after  Michaelmas  yearly,  unless, 
for  reasons,  any  other  date  were  preferred.  There  was  annual 
election ;  but  this  custom  tended  to  become  obsolescent,  and 
members  were  members  during  the  existence  of  each  Parliament. 
In  1703  the  Rump  of  1689  was  still  sitting.  Most  members  were 
"old  parliamentary  hands,"  as,  indeed,  is  obvious  from  the  nature 
of  their  proceedings.  In  1661  the  county  franchise  was  some- 
what extended;  in  1681  crown  freeholders  with  a  taxable  landed 
rental  of  ;!^4oo  were  admitted. 

The  mode  of  election  was  also  regulated  anew  in  1681.  The 
freeholders  were  to  meet  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  each  May  to 
draw  up  a  roll  of  qualified  electors,  which  was  to  be  revised  yearly 


86  PARLIAMENTARY   EVOLUTION. 

at  the  Michaelmas  court.  At  the  elections  the  electors  were  to 
meet  in  the  room  of  the  Sheriff  Court,  and  no  others  were  to  be 
present  except  by  their  desire.  The  presence  of  others  was  a 
frequent  ground  of  contesting  the  result  of  an  election.  One  of 
the  members  of  the  last  choice,  or  the  Sheriff  Clerk,  was  to  bid 
the  electors  choose  a  chairman  and  a  clerk.  Then  persons  who 
wished  to  be  on  the  roll  as  electors  were  to  make  and  substantiate 
their  claims,  and  objections  were  recorded,  and  later  decided  on, 
if  now  undecided,  by  Parliament,  or,  if  no  Parliament  were  sitting, 
by  the  Court  of  Session.  In  1669  the  residential  qualification  had 
been  abolished.  In  1690  new  members,  26  in  all,  were  allotted 
among  fifteen  counties  :  the  shires  had  now,  and  until  the  Union 
in  1707,  92  representatives.  The  county  electors  were  few  in 
number,  ranging  from  12  in  Bute  to  205  in  Ayrshire  as  late 
as  1788;  and  many  electors  did  not  usually  take  the  trouble  to 
come  and  vote. 

In  the  burghs  also  voters  were  very  few,  merely  the  members  of 
the  incoming  and  outgoing  town  councils.  In  the  House,  officers 
of  the  Crown  and  peers  sat  in  the  same  chamber  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  counties  and  burghs.  The  House,  in  Scotland,  was 
not  a  house  of  debate  before  the  Parliament  of  1640,  when  Lords 
of  the  Articles  were  first  removed,  to  return  with  Charles  II.  at  his 
happy  restoration.  The  Parliaments  of  the  Restoration  were  not 
wholly  silent ;  nor  did  they  pass  a  large  block  of  legislation  on  one 
day,  as  had  been  the  usage,  when  it  was  presented  by  the  Lords  of 
the  Articles.  Bills  were  talked  over,  and  sometimes  amended, 
throughout  the  course  of  the  session ;  and  we  have  seen  that 
Lauderdale,  when  King's  Commissioner,  met  with  a  great  deal 
of  constitutional  opposition. 

Under  William  and  INLiry,  William,  and  Anne,  members  were 
occasionally  checked,  and  even  caused  to  quit  the  House,  for 
indulgence  in  vivacities  of  language  and  gesture.  The  procedure 
was  much  as  it  is  at  present :  leave  was  obtained  to  move  a 
resolution  ;  the  Bill  was  read,  or  left  to  "  lie  on  the  table."  There 
was  a  second  reading,  if  so  it  seemed  good ;  then  came  voting. 
If  the  Bill  were  carried,  the  Commissioner,  if  authorised  by  the 
Crown,  must  touch  it  with  the  sceptre  before  it  became  law.  When 
touched,  it  had  received  the  royal  assent.  Members  after  1690 
learned  very  quickly,  or  independently  evolved,  the  mctliods  and 
stratagems  natural  to  debating  and  voting  assemblies.     The  Royal 


STATESMEN    OF    1703.  87 

Commissioner,  representing  in  fact  "  the  Court,"  or  the  poh'cy  of 
the  English  Ministry,  could  usually  obtain  a  majority  by  manip- 
ulating the  various  fluctuating  groups  into  which  members  fell, 
and  from  which  they  were  attracted  into  other  groups,  like  the 
shifting  combinations  in  a  kaleidoscope.  Members  for  shires  and 
burghs  sat  on  forms  at  the  lower  end  of  the  hall ;  peers  sat  at 
the  upper  end,  by  the  throne.  Parties  were  not,  as  in  England, 
separated  from  each  other  by  the  breadth  of  the  floor,  though  there 
were  moments  when  men's  hands  were  on  their  sword-hilts. 

Having  thus  sketched  the  aspect  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  in 
its  latest  years,  we  return  to  the  situation  in  1703.  Queensberry, 
the  "  proto-rebel "  of  1689,  has  been  already  characterised  as  agree- 
able, lavish  of  money  and  of  courtesy ;  so  complex  in  his  intrigues 
that  we  shall  soon  find  him  involved  in  a  mystery  almost  as  obscure 
as,  and  much  more  ramified  than,  "  the  Incident."  His  influence 
was  all  on  the  side  of  the  Union.  The  Earl  of  Mar,  again,  im- 
poverished by  his  grandfather's  career,  was  ready  to  be  of  any  party 
which  promised  personal  advantages.  The  husband  of  a  daughter 
of  the  Duke  of  Kingston,  he  proved  in  the  end  an  uncomfortable 
brother-in-law  to  Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu,  and,  while  he  was  on 
the  side  of  Union,  under  Anne,  and  alternately  attached  to  the  Whig 
and  Tory  parties  of  England, — Bobbing  John,  as  he  was  called, — 
was  to  endeavour,  in  1 7 1  5,  to  break  the  Union,  with  consequences 
equally  disastrous  to  Scotland,  to  the  White  Rose,  and  to  his  own 
reputation. 

The  Argyll  of  the  moment  was  destined  to  die  before  the  scheme 
of  Union  took  shape,  leaving  his  private  affairs  in  an  unpleasantly 
confused  position.  His  successor,  "  Red  John  of  the  Battles,"  was 
the  most  distinguished  of  his  ancient  house  :  of  him  there  is  much 
to  be  told  in  this  period  of  his  country's  history.  One  reproach  is 
spared  him  :  Argyll  could  not  be  called  "  obsequious  "  to  king,  or 
Minister,  or  party.  The  AthoU  of  the  moment  was  also  destined  to 
brief  days,  and  to  trouble  arising  from  his  inclination  to  Jacobitism. 
Marchmont  and  Annandale  we  know  already.  Tweeddale  was  of 
the  party  who,  without  much  enthusiasm,  backed  the  Union  from 
common-sense,  as  the  least  of  many  apparent  evils.  Watching 
them  all,  and  noting  their  ways,  was  Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  a 
Jacobite  from  patriotism  and  from  dislike  of  the  godly,  rather 
than  from  sentiment.  In  reading  T.ockhart's  account  of  these 
times    we    are    frequently   reminded,    by   the    sardonic    style,   of  a 


83  THE  PARTIES   (1703). 

later  member  of  the  clan, — "the  Scorpion," — John  Gibson  Lock- 
hart,  the  son-in-law  and  biographer  of  Sir  Walter  Scott. 

The  chief  factions  to  be  represented  were,  first,  that  of  *'  the 
Courtiers,"  headed  by  Queensberry.  They  took  their  orders  from 
the  English  Ministers,  thus  making  Scotland  subservient  to,  though 
her  interests  were  not  yet  identical  with,  the  interests  of  England. 
For  the  Courtiers,  the  Earl  of  Seafield  dealt  with  the  second  party 
of  the  three,  the  Cavaliers,  as  the  Jacobites  still  called  themselves. 
His  object  was  to  get  the  legality  of  the  last  and  disputed  session 
of  the  Rump  confirmed  in  the  new  Parliament.  "With  horrid 
asservations  and  solemn  vows,"  Seafield  assured  the  Jacobites  that 
Queen  Anne  "  would  trust  the  Government  to  their  management," 
and  take  care  both  of  the  distressed  Royal  family  in  exile  "  and 
of  the  Church." 

The  result  was  that  Seafield  persuaded  the  Jacobites  to  elect 
several  Presbyterians,  but  the  Presbyterians  voted  solidly  for  none 
but  such  as  were  "  True  Blue."  The  activity  of  the  Presbyterian 
party  was  concentrated  on  one  point — no  tolerance  even  of  popery 
or  prelacy. 

The  Duke  of  Hamilton,  the  more  than  half  Jacobite  Arran  of 
William's  reign,  was  a  Hamilton  only  by  the  maternal,  and  a  Douglas 
by  the  paternal,  side — his  mother  being  heiress  of  the  Hamilton 
titles.  Hoping  to  steady  Arran,  William  had  conferred  the  Duke- 
dom of  Hamilton  on  him  ;  but  nothing  could  make  him  steady.  In 
March  1695  he  had  written  to  James  with  proposals  for  a  French 
invasion,  and  with  news,  derived  from  Sunderland,  as  to  the  intended 
attack  on  Toulon  by  the  Mediterranean  fleet.^  After  being  created 
Duke  by  William,  he  had  been,  as  has  been  seen,  seeking  popularity 
by  his  turbulence  in  the  cause  of  the  Darien  Company.  Lockhart 
gives  him  credit  for  "  heroic  courage "  and  great  dexterity  as  a 
party  manager.  But  in  England  he  had  great  possessions,  and, 
being  "  very  active  for  his  own  preservation,"  he  was  no  audacious 
leader  of  the  Jacobites.  He  was  "  somewhat  too  selfish  and  re- 
vengeful " — indeed,  was  an  untrustworthy  personage.  In  January 
1703  an  envoy  was  sent  to  him  from  Saint  Germain.  Young 
James  suggested,  or  his  advisers  suggested,  a  secret  treaty  with 
Anne,  assuring  her  the  Crown  for  life,  while  arrangements  were 
being  made  for  a  restoration.  Meanwhile  James  should  have  the 
Crown  of  Scotland,  and  live  with  Anne  (the  author  of  the  Memoir 
very   innocently   remarks)   "  in   as   strict    friendship   as   their   great 


COURT,   CAVALIER,   AND   COUNTRY   PARTIES   (1703).      89 

grandfather  [James  VI.]  lived  with  Queen  Ehzabeth."  ^^  If  any 
part  of  this  plan  succeeded,  the  Union  would  be  as  remote  as 
ever. 

In  February  1703  Seafield  came  again  from  London  with  more 
promises  to  the  Cavaliers,  and  a  letter  from  the  Queen  to  the 
Council,  suggesting  that  the  Episcopal  ministers  should  be  provided 
for  out  of  the  revenues  of  the  Bishoprics, — a  thing  intolerable  to 
the  Presbyterians.  Queensberry,  who  was  Commissioner,  promised 
all  that  the  Cavaliers  could  hope  for  in  this  way,  if  they  would 
vote  for  the  legality  of  the  last  session  of  the  Rump,  recognise 
Anne's  title,  and  grant  supplies, — so  Lockhart  avers. ^^ 

In  addition  to  the  Court  and  Cavalier  parties  was  the  "  Country 
party "  (patriots  by  profession  rather  than  Presbyterians,  though 
more  Presbyterian  than  Jacobite),  led  by  Hamilton,  while  Home 
was  the  chief  of  the  party  of  the  White  Rose.  On  May  6,  1703, 
"was  a  stately  and  famous  "  Riding  of  Parliament "  from  Holyrood 
to  the  Parliament  House.  The  glittering  ceremonial  was  described 
in  print  and  illustrated :  on  this  occasion  the  street  had  been 
cleaned,  a  thing  worthy  to  be  had  in  everlasting  remembrance. 
Knox,  it  will  be  remembered,  denounced  the  wrath  of  God  on 
*'  the  stinking  pride  of  women,"  when  Queen  Mary  did  the  riding 
in  similar  splendour. 

Mr  Hill  Burton  contrasts  unfavourably  the  method  of  debate 
in  this  Parliament  with  the  riper  usages  of  England,  but  we  have 
the  witness  of  a  member,  Hume  of  Crossrig,  to  the  fact  that  "  there 
was  long  and  tedious  and  nauseous  repetitions  in  debate,"  as  is 
customary  in  legislative  assemblies.^^ 

The  main  object  of  Government  was  to  obtain  a  vote  of  Supply, 
and  for  that  reason  they  had  wheedled  the  Cavaliers  with  promises 
to  tolerate  their  religion.  To  carry  out  the  Cavaliers'  share  of  the 
bargain,  Hamilton  presented  a  Bill  recognising  Anne  and  declaring 
it  high  treason  to  impugn  her  title.  Argyll  proposed  an  additional 
clause,  making  it  high  treason  to  impugn  her  exercise  of  the  govern- 
ment since  her  accession.  After  some  opposition  the  Cavaliers 
acquiesced,  though  the  clause  was  ruinous  to  their  hope  of  making 
the  last  session  of  the  Rump  (1702)  illegal.  They  fully  paid  their 
pound  of  flesh,  considering  that  they  could  trust  the  queen  and 
the  courtiers,  with  their  promises,  better  than  they  could  trust 
Presbyterians  and  the  disgusted  Courtiers  who  had  just  been 
removed  from  office. 


90  ACT   OF   PEACE   AND   WAR   (1703). 

Still  anxious  to  conciliate  the  Courtiers  and  Queensberry,  the 
Cavaliers  chose  the  Earl  of  Home  to  move  a  vote  of  Supply :  the 
grateful  Queensberry  renewed  his  vows  to  them,  and,  Lockhart 
believed,  did  so  in  good  faith.  But  before  Home  spoke,  Argyll, 
Annandale,  and  Marchmont  went  to  Queensberry  and  told  him 
that  they,  with  a  party  holding  Revolution  principles,  meant  first, 
before  Supply  was  moved,  to  ratify  the  Revolution  and  Presbyterian 
dominance.  Queensberry,  in  a  sea  of  troubles,  knew  not  whither 
to  turn.  Home's  motion  for  Supply  was  left  to  "  lie  on  the  table." 
Finally,  Queensberry  decided  to  desert  the  Cavaliers,  break  with 
Hamilton,  and  shelter  himself  under  the  protection  of  Argyll, 
Marchmont,  and  Annandale,  whereby,  of  course,  he  was  certain 
to  cause  the  Cavaliers  to  oppose  Supply.  This  Argyll,  soon  to 
leave  "  his  lewd  profligate  life "  (he  kept  a  mistress,  and  was 
on  ill  terms  with  his  wife),  is  accused  by  Lockhart  of  having 
"  turned  Papist  to  curry  favour  with  King  James " ;  and,  on  the 
old  Scottish  plan,  he  had,  when  Lome,  offered  to  serve  against 
his  father,  the  Earl  who  won  the  martyr's  crown  after  his  futile 
invasion  in  1685.  Now,  at  all  events,  he  was  "the  darling  of  the 
Presbyterians." 

Meanwhile,  as  against  Home's  shelved  bill  for  Supply,  Tweeddale 
had  a  motion  for  regulating  the  conditions  of  government  and  the 
preservation  of  religion  and  liberty  after  Anne's  death.  The  Cav- 
aliers, after  remonstrating  with  Queensberry  on  his  treachery  towards 
them,  which  he  could  not  deny,  met,  and  determined  to  form  an 
independent  group.  Balcarres,  the  inefficient  ally  of  the  great 
Dundee  in  1689,  deserted  them;  in  1715  he  blundered  into  join- 
ing the  Jacobite  army.  Marchmont's  Bill  for  securing  Presbyterian 
dominance  passed, — Lothian  declaring,  amid  shouts  of  laughter,  that 
"  the  Presbyterian  government  was  the  best  part  of  the  Christian 
religion."  ^-^  The  Bill  for  tolerating  Episcopacy  was  dropped, — the 
Commission  of  the  Kirk  declaring  that  toleration  was  "  the  estab- 
lishment of  iniquity  by  law."^* 

Queensberry  now  fought  hard  for  Supply,  but  the  excited  House 
insisted  on  first  safeguarding  Scotland  from  English  domination. 
They  would  not  grant  taxes  nor  do  any  business  till  they  had 
security  for  religion,  liberty,  laws,  and  trade ;  and  the  Cavaliers 
informed  Queensberry  that  they  would  go,  on  this  point,  with  the 
Country  party. 

The  Cavalier  and  Country  parties  carried,  against  the  Courtiers, 


SCOTS   ACT   OF   SECURITY   (1703).  9I 

an  "  Act  of  Peace  and  War,"  making  it  unlawful,  after  Anne's  death, 
for  any  monarch  both  of  England  and  Scotland  to  declare  war 
without  consent  of  Parliament.  This  Act  was  "  touched  "  in  hopes 
that  Supply  would  be  granted  ;  but  not  "  touched  "  was  the  Scottish 
Act  of  Security.  In  England  that  Act  settled  the  Crown,  failing 
issue  of  the  Queen's,  on  the  House  of  Hanover.  In  Scotland  there 
was  fierce  debating  till  September  16,  when  Queensberry  adjourned 
the  House.  The  debates  were  mainly  concerned  with  the  pro- 
cedure to  follow  on  the  Queen's  death  ;  but  as  Queen  Anne  survived 
the  institution  of  a  Scottish  Parliament,  all  the  eloquence  of  the 
solitary,  patriotic,  advanced  Liberal,  Saltoun,  recorded  in  his  works, 
and  all  the  finesse,  went  for  nothing.  The  decision  was  that,  when 
Queen  Anne  died,  the  Estates  should  name  a  successor  descended 
from  the  Royal  line  of  Scotland ;  but  he  or  she  should  not  be  the 
person  who  succeeded  to  the  Crown  of  England,  except  under  con- 
ditions securing  the  honour  and  sovereignty  of  the  Scottish  king- 
dom, frequent  Parliaments,  and  safety  of  Scottish  trade,  religion, 
navigation,  and  colonies,  and  liberty  from  English  or  any  foreign 
influences.  The  terms  were  almost  identical  with  those  in  a  motion 
of  the  Earl  of  Roxburgh,  of  July  16.^"  A  clause  enjoined  on  land- 
lords and  burghs  the  duty  of  arming  and  drilling  "  fencible  "  Prot- 
estants :  this  looked  like  preparation  for  war  with  England.  The 
debates  were  very  fierce  and  noisy.  Atholl,  Seafield,  and  Cromarty 
seceded  from  the  Courtiers  and  joined  the  Cavaliers.  Queensberry 
refused  to  touch  the  Act  of  Security, — he  had  no  warrant  to  do 
so ;  and  the  Act  produced  no  effect,  except  as  a  safety  -  valve 
for  Saltoun's  eloquence,  for  patriotic  emotion,  and  for  defiance  of 
England.  In  this  capacity  it  showed  how  necessary  the  Union 
was,  and  what  difficulties  beset  its  achievement  on  every  hand.  No 
Supply  had  yet  been  granted  ;  an  Act  permitting  the  importation 
of  French  wines,  despite  the  war  with  France,  was  passed,  and  on 
September  5  the  House  was  full  of  members  and  strangers  who, 
for  the  space  of  about  two  hours,  bellowed  "  Liberty  !  "  and  "  No 
Subsidy ! "  ^^  Next  day  the  House  was  prorogued.  The  English 
tendency,  at  least  as  much  after  as  before  the  Union,  was  to  ignore 
Scotland.  For  a  while  it  was  plain  that  Scotland  could  not  safely 
be  ignored. 

On  one  point  the  semi-republican  Saltoun  and  all  true  Scottish 
hearts,  whether  Jacobite  or  Presbyterian,  were  certainly  in  the 
right.       "The    Courtiers,"    the    Queensberry   administration,    were 


92  MERITS   AND   DEFECTS   OF   THE   COURTIERS. 

governed  by  their  deference  to  Godolphin  and  the  other  EngHsh 
ministers  of  Queen  Anne.  Their  position,  so  far  as  they  were 
honest  in  pressing  for  the  Union  and  for  the  acknowledgment 
of  the  succession  of  the  House  of  Hanover,  left  them  no  choice. 
They  must  consult  with  the  English  Ministers  and  be  guided  by 
their  advice,  for  they  were  all  working  towards  the  same  end, 
Union,  and  a  single  king  for  both  countries,  after  the  death  of 
Queen  Anne.  The  majority  of  Scots,  all  the  trading  class  in 
particular,  and  the  more  moderate  ministers,  despite  covenanting 
scruples,  could  look  forward  to  no  better  issue.  "There  are  good 
marriages,  but  no  delightful  marriages,"  says  de  la  Rochefoucauld. 
The  wedding  of  the  two  kingdoms,  if  not  good,  was  the  least  of 
many  evils :  "  delightful "  it  could  not  be,  but  it  would  save  Prot- 
estantism and  might  improve  trade.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
most  calmly  sensible  Scots  could  not  but  detest  the  obsequiousness 
of  Queensberry's  administration  in  their  relations  with  Godolphin 
and  the  English  Government.  The  independence  of  Scotland  was 
practically  non-existent :  except  in  debate,  she  was  ruled,  or  threat- 
ened with  the  prospect  of  being  ruled,  from  England.  Queensberry 
was  vexed  by  all  that  was  said  of  him,  publicly  and  privately,  by 
his  opponents  in  and  out  of  the  Scots  Parliament.  When  a  chance 
was  given  him  of  proving  that  some  of  them  were  dealing  with  the 
king  over  the  water,  he  took  the  opportunity  of  proving  their  dis- 
loyalty to  Protestantism,  always  the  most  useful  of  accusations 
against  an  adversary.  He  became  involved  in  a  plot  against 
a  plot. 

The  crisis  produced  by  Scottish  parliamentary  eloquence  and 
public  emotion  distressed  statesmen  like  Harley,  who  appealed  to 
the  moderating  influence  of  "  Cardinal  Carstares,"  as  that  quiet 
and  astute  politician  was  nicknamed.  In  Parliament,  said  Harley, 
there  had  been  "heat  without  light."  The  speeches  had  been 
printed  and  circulated  in  England,  where  people  took  very  little 
interest  in,  and  did  not  pretend  to  understand  them.  That  was 
precisely  the  Scottish  grievance.  Nobody  understood  that  if  they 
dwelt  in  an  independent  kingdom  they  must  not  be  ruled  by  the 
Ministers  of  another  kingdom,  enjoying  privileges  which  they  did 
not  share.^'^  Carstares  was  called  to  London  to  give  advice.  The 
Queen  was  dissatisfied  with  AthoU,  and  more  so  with  the  Scottish 
Art  of  Security  :  such  measures  should  be  considered  after,  not 
before,  the  Treaty  of  Union. ^'^ 


lovat  and  queensberry.  93 

AthoU's  difference  with  Queensberry  was  important.  He  had 
a  great  Highland  following  of  fighting  men,  and  the  House  was 
always  in  a  wavering  balance,  dipping  towards  Jacobitism.  Colonel 
Hooke  was  showering  Jacobite  memoirs  on  De  Torcy,  foreign  Min- 
ister of  Louis  XIV.;  and  now  a  remarkable  person,  Simon  Fraser  of 
Beaufort,  by  revealing  things  true  and  false  to  Queensberry,  induced 
him  to  meddle  in  a  scheme  of  proving  the  treason  of  AthoU 
and  other  distrusted  Scottish  politicians.  The  consequences  were 
ramified  and  of  long  endurance :  the  facts  reveal  a  strange  state 
of  society  and  morality  in  the  Highlands. 

Hugh  Fraser,  ninth  Lord  Lovat,  had  a  brother,  Thomas  Fraser 
of  Beaufort,  who  survived  his  brother's  grand-nephew,  Hugh,  eleventh 
Lord  Lovat,  and  was  thus  male  heir  to  the  Lovat  title  and  estates. 
The  eleventh  Lord  Lovat  had  married  Amelia  Murray,  daughter  of 
the  first  Marquis  of  AthoU  :  he  had  no  son,  and  resigned  his  lord- 
ship to  procure  a  new  charter,  with  descent  secured  to  his  daughters, 
who  would  be  under  Atholl  influence.  He  later  reverted  to  affec- 
tion for  the  male  line,  represented  by  Fraser  of  Beaufort,  his  great- 
uncle,  and  by  his  male  progeny.  But  Lord  Lovat  died,  and  things 
were  left  in  confusion.  Old  Beaufort  seems  to  have  been  supine, 
but  his  son,  Simon  Fraser,  insisted  that  the  clan  must  elect  a  chief 
(himself).  He  might  have  married  the  heiress,  if  Lovat's  attempt 
to  restore  the  male  line  failed,  but  this  did  not  suit  Atholl.  An 
attempt  to  elope  with  the  heiress  failed,  and  Atholl  removed  the 
child,  aged  nine  years,  to  his  castle  of  Blair.  Meanwhile  Simon, 
an  officer  in  Tullibardine's  regiment,  quarrelled  with  his  colonel, 
whom  he  accuses  of  cowardice,  and  set  up  as  Master  of  Lovat, 
playing  his  own  game  for  his  own  hand.  Atholl  looked  round  to 
find  a  Fraser  who  might  wed  the  Lovat  heiress,  and  yet  be  sub- 
servient to  himself.  He  found  his  man  in  the  Master  of  Saltoun, 
a  Lowland  Fraser  who  had  not  the  Gaelic.  A  written  remonstrance 
was  sent  to  Lord  Saltoun  by  Beaufort,  Simon's  father,  and  twenty 
lairds  of  the  Fraser  clan  :  if  Saltoun  visited  the  Frasers  who  took 
his  part,  he  would  not  soon  go  home  again.  Saltoun,  however, 
with  Lord  Mungo,  a  son  of  AthoU's,  did  visit  the  friendly  set  of 
Frasers.  On  his  return  he  was  seized  by  the  Frasers  of  the  Beau- 
fort party,  near  Inverness,  under  Simon,  and,  with  all  his  company, 
was  carried  to  the  tower  of  Finellan.  On  looking  out  of  the  window 
next  morning,  he  saw  a  gallows  and  ladder  convenient,  and  a 
gathering  of  500  armed  Frasers.     He  contracted  a  serious  illness 


94  EXPLOITS  OF  SIMON  FRASER. 

under  the  threats  with  which  he  was  entertained,  and  was  forced 
to  choose  between  the  gibbet  and  a  written  renunciation  of  his 
scheme.     He  selected  the  latter  alternative. 

Atholl  now  procured  permission  to  march  in  force  against  Simon 
for  appearing  with  an  armed  band.  According  to  an  ally  of  Simon, 
Major  Eraser  of  Castle  Leathers,  he  now  conceived  the  fantastic 
idea  of  conciliating  Atholl  by  marrying  that  nobleman's  daughter, 
the  dowager  Lady  Lovat,  mother  of  the  heiress.  With  his  clans- 
men he  seized  her :  "  there  was  some  harsh  measures  taken,  a 
parson  sent  for"  (Mr  Munro,  minister  of  Abertarff),  "and  the 
bagpipe  blown,"  apparently  to  smother  the  remonstrances  of  the 
reluctant  bride.  In  about  a  week,  according  to  Castle  Leathers, 
the  lady,  "  vowing  she  would  ne'er  consent,  consented,"  and,  like 
Lord  Bateman  in  the  ballad,  "  prepared  another  marriage,"  at  which 
the  Rev.  Mr  Fraser,  minister  of  Kilmorach,  officiated,  the  bagpipe 
being  silent  and  the  bride  willing. 

Simon  now  retired  to  Eilean  Aigas,  an  isle  in  the  Beauly 
river,  later  the  home  of  the  Pretenders  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
John  and  Charles  Allen,  otherwise  John  Sobieski  and  Charles 
Edward  Sobieski  Stuart.  Here  Simon  was  safe,  and  did  not 
answer  to  a  summons  on  a  charge  of  treasonable  armed  assembly. 
After  many  uproarious  proceedings,  Simon's  bride  was  carried  to 
AthoU's  house  at  Dunkeld,  and,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  renounced 
her  marriage.  Simon  fled  from  AthoU's  forces  to  Skye,  but 
returned  and  captured  two  of  AthoU's  sons.  Lord  James  and  Lord 
Mungo,  whom  he  released.  Simon  now  went  boldly  to  Edinburgh 
to  prove  his  innocence  of  a  rape  on  the  Dowager  Lady  Lovat. 
He  relied  on  the  protection  of  Argyll,  who  was  pursuing  his 
ancient  feud  with  the  House  of  Atholl.  But  all  that  Argyll  could 
do  was  to  supply  Simon  with  horses  and  money  for  instant  flight. 
He  escaped  to  France,  where  he  made  interest,  as  being  a  power- 
ful and  loyal  Jacobite,  with  the  Foreign  Minister,  l)e  Torcy,  and 
with  James  H.  On  the  king's  death  he  still  persevered,  but  his 
record  was  not  satisfactory  to  a  pious  Princess,  like  Mary  of 
Modena ;  and  when,  in  1707,  Simon  was  allowed,  outlaw  as  he 
was  on  the  charge  of  treason,  to  go  to  Scotland  and  try  the  temper 
of  the  clans,  he,  in  fact,  was  brought  by  Argyll  to  Queensberry  in 
Edinburgh  and  betrayed  his  mission.  He  was  accompanied,  or 
rather  preceded,  Ijy  the  watchful  James  Murray,  of  the  House  of 
Abercairney,  to  observe  his  movements,  and,  after  seeing  Queens- 


TREACHERY   OF   SIMON    (i  703-1  704).  95 

berry,  he  went  with  Murray  to  the  Highlands.*  What  he  did  there 
was  of  little  importance.  He  has  told  his  own  story  in  his  own 
way  in  Memoirs  couched  in  French.  (There  is  an  English  trans- 
lation of  1 797-)  This  is  one  of  the  most  entertaining  of  books: 
the  ancient  and  loyal  nobility  of  the  Frasers  ;  the  gallant,  chivalrous, 
and  courageous  conduct  of  Simon ;  the  poltroonery  of  TuUi- 
bardine ;  the  virtues  of  Argyll ;  the  ineffable  wickedness  of  some 
"  traitor  Frasers  "  ;  the  black  duplicity  and  treachery  of  Glengarry ; 
the  feebleness  of  Lord  Saltoun, — are  all  described  in  a  manner 
worthy  of  Barry  Lyndon,  whom  Lovat,  though  a  better  educated 
man,  greatly  resembled  in  character  and  accomplishments. 

Returning  from  the  Highlands,  without  much  success,  he  did 
wait  on  Queensberry, — "  in  order,"  he  says,  "  to  amuse  and  throw 
him  on  a  wrong  scent."  Queensberry  said  that  he  knew  all  about 
Simon  Lovat's  business,  and  advised  him  to  betray  all  he  knew 
against  AthoU  (Simon  Lovat's  deadly  foe)  and  Hamilton.  Simon 
replied  that  Hamilton  "  was  devoured  by  the  absurd  idea " — the 
old  Hamilton  idea — "of  becoming  himself  king  of  Scotland." 
Hamilton  had  told  Graham  of  Fintry  that  the  Presbyterians  would 
back  his  claims,  and  that  he  patronised  the  Cavaliers  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  embroiling  the  kingdom.  Simon  knew  that 
Hamilton  had  dealt  with  James  (which  was  true),  and  that  "  he 
had  never  expended  a  sixpence"  for  the  Prince, — which  is  prob- 
able. Atholl,  he  said,  had  been  the  most  faithless  of  men  to 
James,  and  a  persecutor  of  himself.  He  therefore  told  Queens- 
berry everything  against  Atholl  and  Hamilton  which  rumour  and 
a  lively  imagination  could  suggest.  They  had  commissions  from 
Saint  Germain  :  they  would  rise  at  the  first  opportunity  to  restore 
their  king. 

The  delighted  Queensberry  offered  Lovat  an  amnesty,  a  regi- 
ment, a  pension,  and  the  justiciaryship  of  Inverness.  Lovat  re- 
plied that,  in  honour,  he  must  first  revisit  his  exiled  king,  and 
then,  if  he  permitted,  would  make  his  peace  with  Queen  Anne. 
All  he  asked  for  was  a  passport  signed  by  Queensberry.  This  he 
received :  he  was  also  to  visit  Queensberry  secretly  in  London, 
to  obtain  an  English  passport  for  Holland.      Lord  Drummond  con- 

*  This  James  Murray  was  the  uncle  of  Murray  of  Broughton,  the  Secretary  of 
Prince  Charles  in  1745.  Broughton  says  that  Simon  Eraser,  finding  Murray 
inconvenient,  induced  the  Government  to  place  a  reward  of  {,yxi  on  his  head. 
He  then  fled  to  France.     (Memorials  of  John  Murray  of  Broughton,  pp.  15,  16.) 


96  "THE   QUEENSBERRY   PLOT"   (1704). 

gratulated  him  on  the  success  of  his  "romances"  about  AthoU  and 
Hamilton,  "and  such  was  the  first  and  sole  guilt  of  Lord  Lovat." 

This  is  Lovat's  story.^^ 

In  London  Lovat  made  acquaintance  with  Ferguson  the  Plotter, 
and  William  Keith,  a  retainer  of  AthoU.  To  them  he  posed  as 
an  ardent  Jacobite,  who  wished,  for  loyal  purposes,  to  be  reconciled 
to  Atholl.  Ferguson,  smelling  out  Lovat's  design  to  implicate  and 
ruin  Atholl,  gave  the  Duke  warning,  and  Atholl,  in  self-defence, 
informed  Queen  Anne  of  the  whole  intrigue — "The  Queensberry 
Plot."  Queensberry,  on  his  side,  declared  that  Lovat  when  in 
Scotland  had  offered  himself  as  a  spy,  and  as  a  spy  had  been  given 
a  passport  to  France  to  make  more  discoveries.     As  against  Atholl, 

Lovat  had  produced  a  letter  of  Mary  of  Modena  to  L M 

that  is,  "Lord  Murray,"  the  title  under  which  the  Court  of  France 
recognised  Tullibardine,  now  Duke  of  Atholl  on  his  father's  death. 
This  letter  Queensberry  sent,  as  proof  against  Atholl,  to  Queen 
Anne.  It  appears  that  this  was  an  unaddressed  letter  of  Mary's, 
not  meant  for  Atholl, — nobody  would  dream  of  approaching  Atholl 

through  Lovat, — and  that  the  address  to  L M was  the 

work  of  Lovat  himself.-*^  Arrived  in  France,  Lovat  was  suspected, 
and  lay  long  in  durance,  indeed  till  171 5.* 

Queensberry    was    now    in    an    awkward   situation,    for   he    had 

produced  the  letter  to  L M as  evidence  against  Atholl, 

who  was  in  Scotland,  and  the  world  was  buzzing  with  tales  of 
Scottish  disloyalty.  In  Scotland  it  was  angrily  urged  that  in- 
stead of  employing  Simon  as  a  spy  and  denouncing  Atholl  to 
the  English  Ministry,  Queensberry  should  have  locked  Simon 
up  and  publicly  examined  into  the  affair  at  home.  There 
he  was  looked  upon,  with  Argyll,  as  himself  the  chief  conspirator, 
and  Simon  as  his  agent  provocateur^  in  a  scheme  to  ruin  Cavaliers. 
On  returning  to  France,  it  was  said  Simon  had  orders  to  get 
letters  from  the  Court  of  St  Germain  to  Atholl,  Hamilton, 
Seafield,  Cromarty,  and  the  Cavaliers.  He  would  give  these 
letters  to  Queensberry,  who  would  then  use  them  in  his  revenge 
upon  good  Scots — his  parliamentary  opponents.  This  was  Lock- 
hart's  view  of  the  case,  and  no  doubt  the  view  was  popular.^^ 

Atholl,  warned  by  Ferguson,  proved   to   Queen   Anne   his  own 
innocence,   while    she    invited    the    Scottish   Privy   Council   to   in- 
vestigate the  case.      But  the  Whigs  who  ruled  the  English  House 
*  See  Macphcrson's  State  Papers,  i.  641-690,  for  details. 


QUEENSBERRY   LOSES   OFFICE   (1704).  97 

of  Lords  selected  a  committee  of  their  own  body  to  conduct  an 
inquiry,  thereby  increasing  Scottish  irritation.  They  found  a 
conspiracy  proved,  and  that  the  Scottish  refusal  to  accept  the 
Hanoverian  Succession  in  the  late  session  was  the  plotters' 
opportunity.  The  English  House  of  Commons  resented  this  as 
an  unconstitutional  proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  Lords,  a  mere 
Tory  move  against  the  Whig  peers,  but  popular  in  Scotland. ^^ 

Whatever  the  case  of  AthoU  might  be,  Hamilton  was  so  deeply 
dipped  in  Jacobite  intrigue  that  he  felt  himself  in  danger.  As 
was  his  practice,  he  deceived  the  Cavaliers  while  he  kept  measures 
with  them,  if  we  believe  Lockhart.  That  historian  was  lie  with 
Hamilton  to  the  end,  yet  has  frequently  to  record  his  disappoint- 
ing evasions.  When  Atholl  reported  from  London  the  perils  of 
the  situation  and  the  excitement  about  the  plot,  Hamilton  con- 
vened numbers  both  of  the  Cavalier  and  Country  parties.  He 
first  consulted  fairly  safe  men,  such  as  Tweeddale,  Roxburgh, 
Rothes,  Belhaven,  and  Jerviswood,  without  speaking  his  mind 
to  Lockhart,  Strathmore,  Home,  and  other  Cavaliers.  As  envoys 
to  go  to  London  he  and  his  safe  men  selected  Jerviswood — a 
noted  Presbyterian, — Rothes,  and  Roxburgh.  The  Cavaliers  could 
not  reject  but  did  not  trust  these  envoys,  whose  business  was 
to  persuade  the  queen  of  the  necessity  for  a  speedy  meeting  of 
the  Scots  Parliament  to  inquire  into  Queensberry's  charges  of 
disloyalty.  The  consequence  was  that  the  emissaries  "  depended 
sneakingly  on  the  English  Ministry,"  and  were  only  useful  to 
Hamilton  by  allying  the  Country  rather  than  the  Cavalier  party 
with  his  interests. ^^  Anne  disclaimed  an  intention  of  keeping  an 
English  army  in  Scotland,  an  idea  supposed  to  have  been  mooted 
by  Stair  in  Council.  Godolphin  employed  Johnstone  (the"  son  of 
the  ancient  Covenanter  of  evil  days,  Waristoun)  to  deal  with  the 
three  Scots,  and  a  bargain  was  struck  with  them.  They,  with 
Tweeddale  and  the  Country  party,  were  to  be  allowed  to  propose 
limitations  on  Anne's  successor,  and  by  their  command  of  office 
and  places  they  would  secure  in  Scotland  the  claims  of  the 
House  of  Hanover. 

Queensberry  had  fallen  almost  into  ridicule,  and  quite  under 
suspicion,  through  the  plot  of  Simon.  He  was  not,  therefore, 
reappointed  as  Royal  Commissioner :  that  important  post  was 
entrusted  to  the  less  obnoxious  and  less  able  Tweeddale,  "a 
well-meaning  but  simple  man."     Cromarty  (Tarbat)  was  alone  in 

VOL.  IV.  G 


98  PARLIAMENT   OF    1704. 

the  Secretary's  place,  Seafield  was  still  Chancellor,  Johnstone 
was  Lord  Register,  and  was  regarded  as  the  subtlest  and  most 
sycophantic  of  Courtiers.  Johnstone,  ransacking  records,  like  his 
father,  found  a  precedent  of  1641,  in  favour  of  "a  policy  of 
securing  the  succession  at  the  price  of  a  few  limitations."  The 
Cavaliers  well  understood  all  these  machinations,  and  arranged 
that  the  discontented  friends  of  the  fallen  Queensberry  should 
join  them  in  opposing  the  plans  which  the  English  Ministry  had 
entrusted  to  the  new  Commissioner,  Tweeddale,  while  they  on 
their  side  would  stifle  the  inquiry  as  to  Queensberry's  dealings 
with  Simon.  In  truth,  they  cannot  have  been  anxious  to  see  an 
investigation  of  the  intrigues  with  St  Germain  and  the  French 
Court.  Many  men  deserted  the  Cavaliers  and  the  Country  party, 
following  the  lead  of  Tweeddale,  Roxburgh,  and  Jerviswood,  and 
worked  in  the  interests  of  the  Court  :  they  may  have  found  light 
enough  to  see  that  these  were  also  the  true  interests  of  Scotland.-* 
Their  old  associates,  however,  thought  that  they  had  been  won 
over  by  less  reputable  motives.  However  that  may  be,  the  dis- 
gusted Queensberryites,  and  "  the  courage  and  conduct  of  the 
Cavaliers,"  secured  the  honour  of  the  nation  and  the  disappoint- 
ment of  the  so-called  Courtiers. 

On  July  II,  1704,  Tweeddale  presented  the  Queen's  Message  to 
the  Scottish  Parliament.  Their  dissensions,  she  said,  encouraged 
her  enemies  across  the  seas.  She  insisted  that  they  must  show 
their  sense  and  loyalty  by  settling  the  Succession  in  the  Hanover 
line.  Any  reasonable  proposals  of  limitations  on  the  prerogative 
of  that  line  would  be  accepted  by  her.  She  hoped  that  they 
would  improve  trade  and  industries.  Tweeddale  added  that  the 
evidence  as  to  Simon's  plot  would  be  laid  before  the  House. 

On  July  13  Hamilton  produced,  and  on  July  17  spoke  to, 
a  motion  that  the  House  would  not  touch  on  the  Succession  till 
they  had  a  satisfactory  treaty  on  trade,  and  other  matters,  with 
England.  Rothes  proposed  the  converse  course.  Which  motion 
was  to  be  first  debated?  Lord  Phesdo  (Falconer,  a  judge) 
proposed  to  blend  the  motions  (the  intricacies  of  parliamentary 
methods  here  become  vexatious  in  a  high  degree)  ;  the  Courtiers 
were  compelled  to  allow  a  vote  by  the  speech  of  "a  certain 
member,"  probably  Lockhart.  He  spoke  of  "  demanding  the 
vote  sword  in  hand,"  and  the  vote  was  in  favour  of  "  the  two 
resolves    as    conjoined    together."-^       The    general    public    was 


SUCCESSION— LIMITATIONS   OF   ROYAL   POWER   (1704).       99 

charmed,  Hamilton  was  applauded  :  it  was  a  night  of  mirth 
and  jollity.  The  double-barrelled  motion  now  ran  to  this  effect : 
"  Resolved  that  this  House  will  not  proceed  to  the  nomination  of 
a  successor  until  we  have  had  a  previous  treaty  with  England, 
for  regulating  our  commerce  and  other  affairs  with  that  nation. 
And  further  resolved,  that  this  Parliament  will  proceed  to  make 
such  limitations  and  conditions  of  Government  for  the  rectification 
of  our  Constitution  as  may  secure  the  religion,  independence,  and 
liberty  of  this  nation,  before  they  proceed  to  the  nomination  of 
a  successor  to  the  Crown."  ^^ 

Marchmont  next  drew  the  trail  of  "  No  Popery,  no  Pretender," 
across  the  line  of  the  appointed  discussion,  and  much  eloquence 
was  let  loose.  As  days  went  on  a  Bill  of  Supply  passed  its  first 
reading,  and  on  July  25  Hamilton  brought  in  a  new  device  culled 
from  the  English  parliamentary  armoury — the  "  tacking "  of  last 
year's  Act  of  Security  and  free  trade  with  England  to  the  money 
bill.  By  way  of  a  contemporary  account  of  these  manoeuvres,  we 
may  quote  an  extract  from  the  Diary  for  this  day  (July  25)  of  a 
member  who  does  not  conceal  the  tedium  of  the  "long  and 
nauseous  debates."  Hume  of  Crossrig  confides  to  his  journal 
that  "  It  was  moved  by  the  Earl  Marischal  and  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton  that  the  Act  of  Security  might  be  read,  and  added 
as  a  clause  to  the  Act  of  Supply.  It  was  said  by  Lord  Marchmont 
[sic],  he  desired  to  be  heard  before  reading.  No,  said  the  Earl  of 
Marchmont,  it  behoved  first  to  be  read,  for  it  was  a  part  of  his 
speech.  Earl  of  Buchan  said  if  the  Earl  of  Marischal  had  a 
mind  to  read  the  Act  he  might,  as  a  part  of  his  speech  ;  but 
the  Clerk  could  not  read  it  till  members  be  heard  why  it  should 
not  be  read.  The  Earl  of  Marchmont  desired  to  be  heard 
why  it  should  not  be  read.  Earl  Rugland  said  he  was  up 
before  the  Earl  of  Marchmont,  and  desired  to  be  heard,  so 
there  was  a  long  jangle.    .    .    ." 

Still  more  lively  was  Fletcher  of  Saltoun.  "  He  knew  and 
could  make  it  appear  that  the  Lord  Register  [Johnstone]  had 
undertaken  to  promote  the  English  designs  for  promotion  to 
himself.  The  Register  said  there  could  be  no  influence  but  the 
place  he  had,  and  it  was  known  he  had  lost  a  higher  place  for 
his  concern  for  his  country.  .  .  ,  Saltoun  still  insisting,  Sir 
James  Halkett  said  he  was  impertinent.  Saltoun  said  he  who 
would   call    him    impertinent   was   a   rascal.    ...     I   came  out," 


lOO         ACT   OF   SECURITY — ENGLISH    RETORT   (1704). 

ends    honest    Crossrig,  —  and    we    only    wish    to    imitate    him    as 
rapidly  as  possible. ^'^ 

On  August  5  Tweeddale,  having  instructions  so  to  do.  touched 
and  passed  that  Act  of  Security  (lacking  the  clause  on  communica- 
tion of  trade)  which,  in  the  previous  session,  had  been  voted  but 
not  touched.  In  return,  the  House  voted  Supplies  for  six  months, 
the  price  of  the  touching,  about  ;^25,ooo. 

The  instant  need  of  Supply  for  troops,  as  discontented  as  un- 
paid soldiers  are  wont  to  be,  procured  the  touching  of  the  Act 
of  Security.  The  Cavaliers  were  now  anxious  to  nominate  "  honest 
men  "  as  Commissioners  for  the  Treaty  of  Union.  But  Fletcher  of 
Saltoun  seized  the  occasion  for  a  harangue  against  the  behaviour 
of  the  English  Lords'  Committee  of  Inquiry  into  the  Plot,  and  as  the 
Plot  was  essentially  private  business  the  angriest  passions  were 
aroused,  Hamilton  and  Annandale  being  especially  fierce.  No 
Plot  papers  were  produced,  no  Commissioners  for  the  Union  were 
elected,  as  it  could  not  be  known  who  were  under  suspicion  of 
treason.  The  Act  of  Security  thus  reached  England  unmitigated 
by  any  advance  towards  union,  while  the  Cavaliers  lost  their 
chance  of  having  Commissioners  of  their  own  mind.  An  Address 
to  the  Queen  threw  the  blame  on  the  impertinence  of  the  English 
House  of  Lords  and  the  absence  of  the  Plot  papers  and  witnesses.^ 
In  delaying  the  recognition  of  the  House  of  Hanover,  the  Scots 
thought  that  they  had  a  fulcrum  whence  to  move  England  to  their 
will ;  but  the  English,  when  they  slowly  and  reluctantly  began  to 
trouble  themselves  on  the  subject,  showed  that  they  had  the  means 
of  putting  pressure  on  Scotland. 

The  English  House  of  Lords  in  November  was  addressed  by 
Lord  Haversham  on  the  state  of  Scottish  affairs.  The  Protestant 
heritors  and  the  boroughs  had  been  ordered  to  arm  and  exercise 
their  fencible  men  once  a-month.  This  movement,  he  said,  might 
be  meant  to  resist  French  invasion  and  a  Highland  rising,  or  it 
might  have  another  intention.  Here,  then,  in  Scotland  was  great 
poverty,  great  discontent,  and  an  armed  and  disciplined  multitude. 
France  was  in  the  background,  expectant. 

These  perils  were  matter  of  debate  on  November  29,  and  Queen 
Anne  was  present — "to  moderate  the  heats."  She  sat  on  a  bench 
beside  the  fire — because  of  the  cold.-'-^  Though  a  lady  was  present, 
noble  Lords  were  not  much  more  polite  than  Fletcher  of  Saltoun, 
and   Mohun   tried  to  have  Nottingham   sent  to  the  Tower  for  a 


PRESSURE  ON   SCOTLAND  (1704).  lOI 

remark  about  the  late  king.  The  Peers,  without  censuring  the 
Scottish  Act  of  Security,  decided  to  accept  a  Bill  from  the  Commons. 
The  Queen  should  be  enabled  by  Act  to  name  Commissioners  to 
treat  for  a  Union  when  the  Scots  Parliament  had  taken  the  same 
step.  By  way  of  squeezing  the  Scots,  they  were  to  have  no  privi- 
leges as  Englishmen  (what  had  they  before  ?),  with  some  exceptions, 
as  of  officers  in  English  service  and  Scots  settled  in  England  or 
the  Colonies.  Scottish  cattle  were  to  be  excluded  from  England ; 
Scottish  ships  trading  with  France  were  to  be  captured ;  English 
wool  was  not  to  be  imported  into  Scotland ;  Scottish  coals  and 
linen  were  to  be  excluded ;  and  the  northern  ports  and  Carlisle 
were  to  be  fortified,  the  militia  drilled,  and  regular  troops  moved 
to  the  border.  These  precautions  were  proposed  in  an  Address 
of  the  Lords  to  the  Queen.  The  clause  arming  Protestants  of 
the  Northern  counties  alone  did  not  pass  :  the  rest  was  to  come 
into  operation  after  Christmas  1705,  unless  the  Scots  by  that 
date  accepted  the  Hanoverian  succession.  The  Post  Nati  Act 
of  James  VI.  and  I.  would  be  repealed.^ 

Tweeddale  had  to  resign  in  spring  1705,  and  the  new  young 
Duke  of  Argyll  was  appointed  Commissioner.  Roxburgh,  in 
London,  heard  that  Argyll  and  his  followers  would  be  for  a 
Treaty  with  England,  while,  if  Hamilton  was  against  it,  nothing 
could  be  done.  He  was  "  vain  and  necessitous,"  but  to  purchase 
him  would  require  time  and  trouble.  Meanwhile,  the  new  Scot- 
tish Ministers  were  Seafield,  Roxburgh  (Secretaries),  and  Rothes 
(Privy  Seal), — all  these  being  traitors  in  the  eyes  of  men  of  sound 
Cavalier  principles  like  Lockhart  of  Carnwath.  Jerviswood  and 
Lord  Selkirk  also  accepted  office,  "  all  cheerfully  concurring  with 
the  designed  ruin  of  their  native  country.  .  .  .  But  few  and 
evil  were  their  days,"  for  young  Argyll  presently  took  matters 
into  his  own  hands,  and  a  new  Ministry  served  under  him.^^ 

The  renegades  had  hardly  sipped  the  sweets  of  power  when 
Seafield  was  made  Chancellor,  Annandale  and  Loudoun,  Secretaries 
of  State,  Queensberry,  Privy  Seal,  and  Philiphaugh,  Lord  Register, 
with  Cockburn  of  Ormiston  as  Lord  Justice.  But  before  these 
changes  occurred,  a  brilliant  little  feat  of  arms  was  achieved  for 
the  Scottish  East  India  Company  by  their  Secretary,  Mr  Roderick 
Mackenzie, — a  gentleman  already  mentioned  as  having  been  baited 
by  the  inquiries  of  the  English  Parliament  in  1695,  when  they 
interfered  with  the  nascent  enterprise  of  Darien. 


I02         THE   AFFAIR   OF   CAPTAIN   GREEN    (1704- 1705). 

The  Scottish  East  India  Company  had  kept  up  an  aspect  of 
animation,  arid  had  on  hand  various  small  shipping  ventures. 
There  was  anxiety  about  the  fate  of  a  vessel  long  missing,  a  ship 
which  had  come  back  from  Darien,  The  Speedy  Return  (Captain 
Drummond),  and  excitement  about  The  Annandaie,  which  had 
been  seized  in  the  Thames  at  the  instance  of  the  East  India 
Company,  for  some  real  or  alleged  breach  of  that  Company's 
privileges. 

In  August  1704  an  English  vessel,  The  Worcester  (Captain 
Green),  came  into  Leith  roads  to  repair.  Mr  Roderick  Mackenzie 
now  beheld  a  chance  of  exercising  the  Scottish  Company's  right 
"to  seek  and  take  reparation  for  injuries  done  by  sea  and  land." 
As  the  Government  of  Scotland  would  not  move,  Mackenzie 
stepped  into  the  High  Street  on  a  Saturday  afternoon,  and,  as 
he  says,  "got  together  a  sufficient  number  of  genteel  pretty 
fellows," — "pretty"  meaning  bold  and  athletic.  He  mustered  an 
eleven,  who  had  pistols  as  well  as  swords ;  divided  them  into  two 
small  boat-parties,  starting  one  from  Newhaven,  the  other  from 
Leith ;  and,  with  all  the  materials  for  making  punch  on  board, 
the  gentlemen  visited  The  Worcester  as  friendly  sight-seers.  When 
a  good  deal  had  been  drunk,  and  a  Scottish  song  was  being  sung, 
the  officers  of  The  Worcester  found  pistols  presented  at  their  heads  : 
the  crew  ran  for  the  loaded  blunderbusses  lying  ready  on  racks, 
but  between  them  and  their  weapons  shone  the  swords  of  the 
Scottish  gentlemen.  The  JForcester's  men  were  bound,  the  cargo 
was  sealed  up,  and  The  Worcester  lay  without  rudder  or  sails  in 
Burntisland  harbour,  under  her  own  guns,  which  Mackenzie 
mounted  in  an  old  fort  on  shore.  An  English  man-of-war  was 
lying  in  the  Firth,  within  sound  of  a  pistol  shot,  but  no  shot 
was   fired. 

The  cutting  out  of  The  JForcester  occurred  on  August  12; 
Mackenzie  began  an  action  against  the  ship  in  the  Scottish  Court 
of  Admiralty,  and,  in  his  report  of  September  4,  wrote  that  "  from 
some  very  odd  expressions  dropped  now  and  then  from  the  ship's 
crew,"  who  had  fraternised  with  the  people  at  Burntisland,  he 
suspected  that  they  had  been  "guilty  of  some  very  unwarrantable 
practices."  In  fact,  the  friends  of  the  officers  and  crew  of  the 
missing  ship,  The  Speedy  Return,  had  very  naturally  asked  the 
mariners  of  The  Worcester  if  they  had  any  news  of  that  vessel. 
"You   won't  see    her   in    haste,"   said   an    English    sailor    named 


GREEN  CONDEMNED  TO  DEATH  (1705).       I03 

Haines,  to  Mackenzie,  and  he  babbled  of  terrible  deeds  done 
by  the  sloop  of  The  Worcester  on  the  coast  of  Malabar.  Other 
men  of  the  ship  dropped  hints  in  their  cups,  and  Haines  made 
confidences  to  a  girl  with  whom  he  was  in  love  :  the  girl  did  her 
best  to  keep  his  secret. 

The  Privy  Council  now  arrested  and  examined  The  Worcester's 
men,  and,  on  March  5,  1705,  their  trial  began  before  the  Scottish 
Court  of  Admiralty.  The  popular  conviction  was  that  The 
Worcester  had  seized  the  Company's  missing  vessel,  the  ill- 
named  Speedy  Return.  On  the  Bench  were  Loudoun,  Belhaven — 
an  energetic  friend  of  the  Darien  venture, — Hume  of  Blackadder, 
and  two  of  the  judges,  Dundas  of  Arniston  and  Cockburn  of 
Ormiston — a  Whig  of  the  party  of  the  Courtiers.  The  surgeon  of 
The  Worcester,  Mr  May,  and  two  Africans,  the  cook's  mate  and 
the  captain's  man,  gave  evidence  that,  off  the  coast  of  Malabar, 
about  February  or  March  1703,  the  sloop  of  The  Worcester  had 
piratically  seized  a  ship  and  murdered  English  or  Scottish  sailors. 
May,  who  was  on  shore,  had  heard  firing,  and  learned  from  the 
black  sea-cook,  Francisco,  that  he  himself  had  been  wounded  in 
the  fight,  and  that  the  crew  of  the  captured  vessel  had  been 
killed  in  cold  blood.  It  was  also  proved  that  the  cargo  of  The 
Worcester  covx'ix'sXQ.di  of  arms  valued  at  only^^iooo,  while  she  carried 
twenty  guns,  and  had  a  crew  of  thirty-six  men,  and  her  captain 
communicated  with  her  owners  in  cypher.  The  Worcester,  "the 
old  black  bitch  "  as  one  of  her  crew  called  her,  certainly  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  engaged  in  legitimate  commerce. 

The  jury  found  that  "there  was  one  clear  witness,"  the  black 
cook  (who  was  dying  when  he  gave  evidence),  to  "  robbery,  piracy, 
and  murder,"  and  that  there  was  cumulative  corroboration.  It 
was  not  alleged  that  the  pirated  vessel  was  The  Speedy  Return; 
piracy  had  been  committed  on  some  vessel  unknown,  and  there 
was,  so  to  speak,  no  corpus  delicti.  The  captain.  Green,  was 
condemned,  with  four  others,  to  be  hanged  on  April  4,  four  others 
on  April  11,  the  other  five  on  April  18.  Meanwhile  Haines,  who 
had  already  blabbed,  and  another  sailor  named  Bruckley,  made 
full  confessions  :  Haines  had  already  spoken  to  Anne  Seaton,  the 
girl  whom  he  was  courting,  of  something  valuable  to  the  prose- 
cution :  he  now  said  that  it  was  his  diary  of  the  voyage,  which  he 
had  thrown  into  the  sea. 

On  March  28,  1705,  came  a  letter  to  the  Chancellor  from  the 


104      GREEN    HANGED — MYSTERY   OF    THE  SPEEDY  RETURN. 

queen,  written  by  Argyll,  and  ordering  a  respite  till  the  whole 
case  was  laid  before  her  Majesty.  The  Privy  Council,  as  the 
queen's  proceeding  was  informal,  sent  in  an  account  of  the  trial, 
but  asked  that  no  respite  should  be  granted.^^  A  week's  respite, 
however,  April  4-1 1,  was  permitted  to  Captain  Green.  Meanwhile, 
on  March  21,  two  English  sailors  at  Portsmouth  had  made  affidavit 
that  they  had  been  members  of  the  crew  of  The  Speedy  Return^ 
and  that  they  had  escaped  from  pirates  who  took  that  vessel  off 
the  coast  of  Madagascar,  while  Captain  Drummond  was  on  shore. 
If  they  told  truth.  Green  did  not  seize  The  Speedy  Return.  "  This 
business  of  Green  is  the  devil  and  all,  it  has  spoiled  all  business," 
namely  as  to  the  Union,  wrote  Secretary  Johnstone  from  London 
(April  9).  In  the  Cabinet  Somers  said  that  he  knew  not  Scots 
law,  but  by  all  the  law  he  knew  the  trial  was  illegal,  as  no  ship 
was  specified  as  the  victim  of  Captain  Green. ^^  The  English 
Whigs  said  that  the  trial  was  a  Jacobite  move :  it  would  make 
a  good  cry  for  them  at  the  elections.  On  April  10  a  mob,  de- 
rpanding  the  death  of  Green,  arose  in  Edinburgh ;  on  April  1 1 
it  roared  round  the  meeting-place  of  the  Privy  Council  in  the 
Parliament  House.  The  Chancellor  was  attacked  in  his  carriage, 
and  had  to  take  refuge  in  a  friend's  house.  The  Council  gave 
in  to  the  mob :  Green,  Madder,  and  another  were  duly  hanged 
on  Leith  sands. 

Many  years  later  (1737),  Forbes  of  Culloden,  in  1705  a  very 
young  man,  told  the  House  of  Commons,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Porteous  Riot,  that  he  had  believed  in  Green's  innocence,  had 
attended  his  funeral,  and  knew  that,  after  his  hanging,  letters 
reached  the  friends  of  the  crew  of  The  Speedy  Return  announcing 
their  safety.  What  was  the  date  of  these  letters,  and  what  was  the 
date  of  the  seizure  of  The  Speedy  Return  off  Madagascar,  accord- 
ing to  the  affidavits  of  two  Englishmen  of  the  crew?  In  1729 
*  Robert  Drury's  Journal '  appeared,  and  Drury  testified  that  he 
met  Captain  Drummond  in  Madagascar,  long  after  Green's  hanging. 
But  the  latest  editor  of  Drury's  'Journal,'  Captain  Pasco  Oliver 
(1890),  makes  it  appear  that  the  book  is  a  fanciful  compilation, 
probably  by  Dc  Foe,  and  that  Drury  was  himself  a  pirate, — at  all 
events,  was  a  suspicious  character.  Finally,  Hamilton,  in  his  '  New 
Account  of  the  East  Indies,'  chap.  xxv.  (1727),  describes  at  length 
his  own  meeting  with  Green  and  his  crew,  including  May,  the 
surgeon,    at    Calicut,   in    February    1 703.       Green    told   Hamilton 


PARLIAMENT — ARGYLL   AND   THE   SQUADRONE   (1705).       IO5 

that  he  had  sold  most  of  his  cargo  of  arms  to  pirates  in  Mada- 
gascar. The  mate,  Madder  or  Mather,  in  Hamilton's  presence, 
confessed  to  crimes,  which  the  crew  of  drunkards,  he  feared, 
were  sure  to  blab.  Hamilton  replied  that  he  had  been  informed 
of  their  sinking  a  sloop  with  European  sailors  off  Coiloan.  The 
surgeon,  May,  told  Hamilton  what  he  later  told  the  Scottish  Court 
at  the  trial.  "  I  have  heard  of  as  great  innocents  condemned  to 
death  as  they  were,"  ends  Hamilton  drily.  Captain  Green,  it  seems, 
in  Lord  Braxfield's  words,  "  was  nane  the  waur  o'  a  hanging,"  but 
probably  he  was  not  guilty  of  the  seizure  of  The  Speedy  jReturn.^ 

During  these  proceedings  Tweeddale's  party  yielded  place  to 
Argyll,  and  constituted  themselves  into  the  Squadrone  Volante, 
a  mass  of  votes  that  might  turn  the  scales  when  so  it  suited  the 
leaders.  It  was  a  Parliament  of  groups,  not  of  a  united  Govern- 
ment and  compact  Opposition,  that  met  on  July  3,  1705.  The 
new  Commissioner,  the  young  Duke  of  Argyll,  was  the  greatest 
man  of  the  family  since  the  friend  of  Bruce,  Sir  Nigel.  He  was 
no  coward,  either  in  Council  or  on  the  field  of  battle.  He  had 
no  desire  to  practise  the  statesmanship  which  is  led  by  the  mass 
of  the  party,  and,  in  a  familiar  phrase,  to  "shout  with  the  larger 
mob."  Though  he  inherited  the  liking  of  the  Presbyterian  party, 
he  was  not  a  Puritan  in  his  private  life :  indeed,  perhaps,  none 
of  the  house  ever  was,  except  the  martyred  Marquis.  His  letters 
announce  his  determination  to  employ  only  steady  friends  of  the 
Revolution  of  1688,  though  Tweeddale's  friends  of  the  Squadrone 
Volante  were  supposed  to  stand  high  in  the  favours  of  Queen  Anne. 
He  asked  for  Green  Ribbons  (of  the  Order  of  the  Thistle)  for 
Lothian,  Mar  (the  Mar  of  17 15),  and  Haddington,  and  remarked 
that  some  twenty  votes  had  been  lost  by  injudicious  thrift  in  not 
purchasing  them.^^     His  Ministry,  as  we  have  seen,  were  Whigs. 

The  Queen's  Message,  read  on  July  3,  1705,  and  the  speeches  of 
Argyll  as  Commissioner,  and  of  the  Chancellor,  all  dwelt  on  the 
urgent  necessity  of  arranging  a  Treaty  of  Union  ;  but  the  House 
preferred  to  begin  by  discussing  questions  of  trade  and  finance, 
fishing  and  salt-making,  the  currency,  and  the  banking  dreams  of 
a  Dr  Chamberlain  and  of  the  brilliant  gambler,  Law  "of  Lauris- 
ton,"  later  so  famous  as  the  deviser  of  the  Mississippi  Scheme.  All 
this  was  deliberate  waste  of  time — the  Darien  affair  had  proved  that 
Scotland  could  not  be  a  great  trading  country  on  her  own  bottom. 
Lockhart  himself  saw  that  the  Cavaliers  should  have  gone  into  the 


I06      CAVALIERS   RESTRICTING  ROYAL   POWER  (1705). 

question  of  the  Treaty  of  Union  while  they  were  fresh  and  the 
session  was  young.  Then  they  might  have  rejected  the  Treaty  or 
modified  it  to  their  minds,  electing  partisans  of  their  own  as 
Commissioners  to  meet  those  of  England.  But  as  time  went 
on,  the  money  and  influence  of  the  Court,  and  the  wiles  of 
Queensberry,  who  came  late  to  Scotland,  won  votes  if  not  hearts 
for  the  English  policy.^*^  One  useful  vote  created  a  Council  of 
Trade  to  inquire  into  the  national  finances.  After  about  three 
weeks  (July),  the  malcontents,  under  Hamilton,  resolved  that 
they  must  have  a  treaty  settling  commercial  and  other  relations 
with  England  before  they  would  settle  on  a  successor  to  Queen 
Anne,  who,  good  lady,  was  always  seeing  her  winding-sheet  waved 
before  her  eyes, — as  Queen  Elizabeth  had  expressed  it.  The 
House  also  decided  that  they  would  make  such  limitations  to 
the  future  monarch's  power  as  they  pleased,  before  nominating 
the  coming  king.  To  the  horror  of  good  Cavaliers,  the  Marquis 
of  Montrose,  the  great-grandson  of  the  hero,  voted  against  them 
by  the  side  of  the  son  of  the  detested  Johnstone  of  Waristoun. 
Worse,  he  had  taken  the  Holy  Communion  at  the  hands  of 
Presbyterian  ministers,  which  was  equivalent  to  confessing  their 
power  to  excommunicate  the  great  Marquis.  But  he^  too,  had 
been  a  Covenanter, — a  point  forgotten  by  Cavaliers !  ^^ 

The  House  now  drifted  back  to  questions  of  trade,  probably  on 
purpose  to  show  the  English  how  little  they  cared  for  them.  At 
the  end  of  July,  however,  Lothian  demanded  a  first  reading  of 
his  Bill  for  a  Treaty,  while  the  Opposition  insisted  that  a  Bill 
of  Limitations  on  the  power  of  the  future  monarch  should  first 
be  taken.  They  carried  the  vote  by  a  majority  of  three,  says 
Argyll,  and  by  the  aid  of  the  Squadrone  Volante.  Yet,  as  Argyll 
writes  indignantly,  some  of  these  men  had  offices  and  others  had 
pensions.  An  example  should  be  made  of  Cromarty,  the  Com- 
missioner wrote,  Cromarty  being  the  Tarbet  of  the  years  following 
the  Revolution.  The  "limitations,"  much  akin  to  those  forced  on 
Charles  \.  during  the  period  of  the  Bishops'  Wars,  were  voted,  but 
were  not  "touched"  with  the  sceptre.^ 

The  Cavaliers  restricting  royal  power  presented  an  odd  spectacle, 
but  they  had  good  party  reasons  of  popularity  and  obstructiveness. 
Fletcher  presented  a  grand  scheme  of  eleven  Radical  measures,  the 
twelfth  being  that  the  king  was  to  forfeit  his  crown  if  he  infringed 
any  one  of  them.     "  Most  part  of  people  here  are  stark  mad,  and 


UNION    BY   TWO   VOTES   (1705).  IO7 

do  not  themselves  know  what  they  would  be  at,"  wrote  Argyll ;  but 
the  various  groups  of  the  motley  Opposition  knew  their  own  private 
motives,  in  each  case,  very  well.     On  August  24  Mar's  motion  as 
to  a  Treaty  of  Union  was  considered  :  this  is  the  Mar  who  led  and 
bungled  the  rising  of  1 7 1 5.     Fletcher  denounced  the  insolence  of 
the   recent    English    Act.      That   Act  gave   to   Queen    Anne    the 
nomination  of  Commissioners  to  arrange  the  Treaty  :    Mar's  draft 
left  a  blank  on  this  important  point.     The  Cavalier  and  Country 
parties  strove  "to  clog  the  Commission  with  such  restrictions  as 
should    retard    the   Treaty's    taking    effect."      Hamilton    proposed 
"that  the  Union  should  no  ways  derogate  from  any  fundamental 
laws,  ancient  privileges,  offices,  rights,  liberties,  and  dignities  of  this 
nation,"     Of  course  such  a  union  would  not  be  "  an  incorporating 
union"  at  all.     Hamilton's  resolution   was  defeated  by  only  two 
votes;   a  few  canny  Cavaliers  did  not  attend  when  the  vote  was 
taken, — probably  they  saw  just  in  time  that  a  quarrel  with  England 
and  the  fulfilment  of  the  threat  to  make  Scotsmen  aliens  were  not 
desirable  results.     These  results  really  honest  Cavaliers  were  pining 
for;   the  king  over  the  water  would   have  his  opportunity.     But 
common-sense  triumphed  over  romance.     "  From  this  day  may  we 
date  the  commencement  of  Scotland's  ruin,"  writes  Lockhart ;  and, 
as  a   matter  of  fact,   during    the    remainder  of  his   life  Scotland 
seemed  to  have  lost  her  dignity  as  a  nation,  and  gained  very  little 
in  the  way  of  worldly  wealth.      Hamilton,  acting  treacherously  as 
Cavaliers  thought,  had  proposed  that  the  queen  should  have  the 
nomination  of  the  Commissioners,  as  Commissioners  for  a  treaty 
there  were  to  be.     "  The  true  matter  was,  his  Grace  had  a  great 
mind  to  be  one  of  the  treaters  himself."    Parliament  saved  its  dignity 
by  an  address  to  the  Crown,  praying  that  nothing  should  be  done 
in  the  treaty  till  the  English  dropped  their  threat  of  making  the 
Scots  aliens.     Supply  was  granted,  Argyll  adjourned  till  December, 
and  the  session,  he  writes,  "  ended  with  all  the  decency  imaginable." 
The  Court  had  recognised  that  with  time  and  tact  Hamilton  was 
to  be  won.     They  had  gained   him,  and  the  English  menace  of 
alienation    had   produced    its    effect.      Even    Lockhart   could    not 
conceal  from   himself  that   the   House,   in   its   heart,  despite  loud 
patriotic  talk  and  adverse  votes,  did  desire  the  Treaty  of  Union. 
After   a   miserable   century   of  presbyterial   government,    Cavalier 
persecutions,  poverty,  strife,  and  demoralisation,  men  were  return- 
ing to  the  wisdom  of  Bacon  and  James  VI. 


I08  NOTES. 


NOTES    TO    CHAPTER    IV. 

^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  47  ;  i.  276,  "Letter  to  an  English  Lord." 

-  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  44-47. 

"•*  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  pp.  2-7. 

"*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  48  ;  Carstares  Papers,  pp.  714-716. 

^  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  pp.  7,  8. 

*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  52. 

'  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  p.  Ii. 

8  The  facts  are  collected  and  set  forth  in  Professor  Sanford  Terry's  '  The 
Scottish  Parliament,'  1603-1707.   MacLehose,  Glasgow,  1905. 

®  Macpherson,  Original  Papers,  i.  512-514. 
^*  Macpherson,  Original  Papers,  i.  623-625. 
^^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  51-59. 
'^  Hume  of  Crossrig's  Diary,  p.  loi. 
^^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  65. 
^*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  66. 
^'  Crossrig's  Diary,  p.  117. 
^^'  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  69. 

^^  Carstares  Papers,  pp.  719-722.     August  19,  Sept.  16,  1703. 
^^  Atholl  MSS.,  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  XH.,  viii.  61. 
''•*  Lovat,  pp.  160-182:  1797. 

2"  Lockhart,  i.  "8-83  ;  Ferguson  the  Plotter,  pp.  336,  342. 
-'  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  81. 

—  The  story  of  Lovat's  affair  is  based  on   Lockhart,    Macpherson's   Papers, 
'Major  Eraser's  Manuscript,'  edited    by  Colonel  Fergusson    (Edinburgh,   1889), 
and    Lovat's   Own   Memoirs.       Cf.    Mr   Mackinnon's    '  Union   of  Scotland   and 
England,'  "A  Plot  and  its  Sequel." 
^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  93,  94. 
^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  96-99. 
2*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  loi,  102. 
^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  loi. 
^  Hume  of  Crossrig's  Diary,  pp.  I45-I48. 
^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.,  xi.  204,  205. 
^  Parliamentary  History,  vi.  369-371. 

'■^'  I'arliamentary  History,  vi.  369-374  ;  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  i.    14-18  ; 
Boycs,  iii.  165,  166. 

''  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  107-109. 
'■^  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  pp.  64,  65. 
:i:i  Jerviswood  Correspondence,  p.  70. 

"State    Trials,    xiv.  ;    Hill    Burton's    Scotti.sh    Criminal    Trials;    Historical 
Mysteries,  pp.    193-213  (A.   Lang). 

^■^  Sec  Letters  of  Argyll  in  'The  Edinburgh  Review,'  October  1892. 

•'*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  116. 

'^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  118,  1 19. 

^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  120-122. 


109 


CHAPTER    V. 


THE     UNION. 


1705-1707. 


"The  fort  that  parleys  and  the  woman  who  listens — surrender.'* 
In  the  matter  of  the  Union  Scotland  had  listened  and  had  par- 
leyed ;  her  surrender  of  distinct  and  independent  sovereignty  was 
certain  to  follow.  The  weightier  part  of  the  nation  knew,  in  the 
deeps  of  their  hearts,  that  this  must  be  so.  They  knew  that  the 
independent  sovereignty  had  been  the  cause  of  poverty  and  of  the 
expatriation  of  the  flower  of  the  youth  to  fight  under  foreign  flags. 
Worse,  the  appearance  of  independence  had  either  been  the  germ 
of  civil  war,  and  was  likely  to  be  so  again,  or  had  degenerated  into 
a  farce,  the  Scottish  Ministers  being  puppets  moved  by  the  English 
Court.  Charles  I.,  trying  to  tyrannise  over  Scotland  by  the 
strength  of  England,  had  caused  the  Bishops'  Wars.  More  re- 
cently Scotland  had  really  been  governed,  through  the  royal  com- 
missioners and  with  backstairs  methods,  by  the  English  administra- 
tion. There  was  actually  more  real  independence  and  much  less 
corruption  in  the  country  when  it  came  to  be  represented  in  the 
open  air  and  light  of  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  than  when 
fighting  against  English  Court  influence,  with  an  Opposition  made 
up  of  hostile  groups,  in  the  Parliament  House  of  Edinburgh.  A 
Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  an  incorporating  union,  was,  if  not 
wholly  satisfactory  to  the  smaller  country,  still  an  intelligible  con- 
ception. All  the  plans  of  federation  and  of  a  local  Parliament 
were  ingenious  "whimsies,"  the  hobbies  of  this,  that,  and  the  other 
amateur  of  constitution-making.  Moreover,  England  was  deter- 
mined to  have  an  "  incorporating  union,"  or  none  at  all.  Every 
person  of  sense  in  Scotland  knew  this,  and  knew  that   the  alter- 


no  THE   COMMISSIONERS   (1706). 

native  to  complete  union  was  civil  war.  Even  the  Cavaliers  were 
aware  that  in  such  a  war  they  could  not  depend  on  the  aid  of 
France;  while,  even  if  they  could,  the  Presbyterians  would  be 
driven  to  make  any  concessions  to  England  rather  than  receive 
the  Chevalier  de  St  George  with  his  wicked  and  idolatrous  Mass. 
Thus,  as  De  Foe  remarks,  everything  worked  together  to  pro- 
duce the  Union,  and  the  many  grounds  of  objection  to  it  cancelled 
each  other.  "The  Union  grew  up  between  all  the  extremes  as  a 
\  consequence,  a7id  it  was  merely  formed  by  the  nature  of  things  rather 
than  by  the  designs  of  the  parties. ^^  ^  The  Union  was  a  natural  flower 
of  evolution.  Many  of  the  objections  to  it  —  patriotic,  historical, 
sentimental,  and  even  economic — were  far  from  being  idle  fancies ; 
but  the  Union,  as  the  least  of  all  possible  evils,  was,  in  process  of 
time,  to  become  the  greatest  of  all  possible  goods  in  this  imperfect 
world.  The  Commissioners,  thirty -one  of  either  country,  were, 
almost  all  of  them,  men  who  understood  this.  They  met  to  do  the 
business  by  interchange  of  written  documents,  and  not  to  debate 
and  jangle.  Parliament  might  be  trusted  to  do  that  part  of  the 
discussion  afterwards. 

Anne  entrusted  the  nomination  of  the  Commissioners  for  the 
treaty  to  her  Ministers, — mainly  to  Godolphin  for  England,  to 
Queensberry  and  Argyll  for  Scotland.-  Neither  Hamilton  nor 
Argyll  appeared  for  Scotland, — Hamilton  being  distrusted,  while 
Argyll  appears  to  have  been  offended  by  the  omission  of  Hamilton. 
The  names  of  the  Commissioners  show  the  reasons  for  which 
they  were  chosen  distinctly  enough.  They  were  the  Duke  of 
Queensberry,  Earls  Seafield,  Mar,  Loudoun,  Sutherland,  Wemyss, 
Morton,  Leven,  Stair,  Rosebery,  Glasgow,  Lord  Archibald  Campbell 
(brother  of  Argyll,  and  later  Earl  of  Islay),  Duplin,  Ross,  Sir  Hugh 
Dalrymple,  Cockburn  of  Ormiston,  Dundas  of  Arniston,  Stewart  of 
Tillicultrie,  Francis  Montgomery,  Sir  David  Dalrymple,  Ogilvie  of 
Forglen,  Sir  Patrick  Johnstone  (Provost  of  Edinburgh),  Mont- 
gomery (late  Provost  of  Glasgow),  Smollett  of  Bonhill  (an  ancestor 
of  the  author  of  '  Peregrine  Pickle '),  Morrison  of  Prestongrange, 
Grant  of  Grant,  the  younger ;  Stewart  (a  Galloway  Stewart), 
Campbell  of  Ardentinnie,  Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  and  Clerk, 
younger,  of  Penicuik,  a  financial  expert.  Among  the  Commis- 
sioners are  scarce  any  Highlanders,  for  we  can  hardly  reckon  the 
two  Campbells  in  the  truly  Celtic  fraction  of  the  nation  which  took 
no  part  in  parliamentary  politics.     Argyll  and  the  Chief  of  Grant, 


"FEDERALISM   A   CHIMERA"   (1706).  HI 

however,  had  large  Highland  followings,  Lockhart  was  the  only 
professed  Cavalier.  He  was  requested  by  his  party  to  accept  the 
office,  but  to  say  nothing.  He  watched  the  case  for  the  Jacob- 
ites, and  incurred  some  ill-will  for  his  purely  passive  attitude 
among  Cavaliers  who  did  not  understand  his  position.  Roxburgh, 
Jerviswood,  and  Rothes,  the  leaders  of  the  New  Party,  were 
omitted,  with  Fletcher  of  Saltoun,  the  eloquent  and  unpractical. 
No  flowers  of  rhetoric  were  desired. 

Behind  the  public  scenes  the  Earl  of  Marchmont,  the  Polwarth 
of  Argyll's  ill-fated  expedition,  had  been  bustling  like  a  Nestor, 
giving  advice  to  Anne,  to  Somers,  to  Wharton,  to  Argyll,  on  the 
choice  of  Commissioners.  He  desired  the  choice  of  none  who  had 
Jacobite  tendencies,  for  the  Hanoverian  succession,  in  Scotland  as 
well  as  in  England,  was  a  necessary  corollary  of  the  Union. ^ 
Marchmont  had  good  reasons,  apart  from  the  security  of  the  Pres- 
byterian faith,  to  desire  an  end  of  the  international  troubles.  His 
pension  as  Chancellor  had  not  been  paid  for  three  years,  "which 
makes  me  very  uneasy  in  this  time  when  so  little  can  be  made  of 
our  estates  in  the  country."  In  truth,  Scotland  was  being  starved 
into  agreement  with  her  rich  neighbour  :  even  regimental  officers 
were  ruined  by  the  long  arrears  of  pay.  In  January  1706  the  lead- 
ing politicians  of  Scotland  learned,  from  various  broad  hints,  that 
only  an  incorporating  union  would  satisfy  the  English  Ministers. 
Carstares  was  not  forgotten,  and  to  him,  in  Scotland,  Portland  wrote 
to  this  effect.  A  partial  union,  with  full  commercial  privileges, — 
the  ideal  of  Scots  of  all  parties, — was  impossible  :  to  haggle  for 
this  would  destroy  the  conciliatory  temper  of  the  English.* 

Mar,  the  ruinous  Earl  of  "the  Fifteen"  (1715),  from  Whitehall 
(March  9,  1706),  wrote  to  Carstares  in  similar  terms,  and  through 
Carstares  the  Scottish  leaders  would  learn  the  Ens;lish  intentions. 
"They  will  give  us  no  terms  that  are  considerable  for  going  into 
their  succession — if  any — without  going  into  an  entire  union."  They 
"  think  all  the  notions  about  federal  unions  and  forms  a  mere  jest 
and  chimera."  This  news  was  not  to  be  made  generally  known 
in  Scotland,  lest  the  people  should  "despair  of  the  treaty,"  and  the 
secrets  of  the  negotiations  were  well  kept.  "  JV/ia^  we  are  to  treat 
■ofisnotinourchoice"\\xo\.e  Mar.  To  Cavaliers  and  patriots  like 
Fletcher  of  Saltoun  this  phrase  must  have  meant  that  Scotia  invicta, 
which  had  resisted  Romans,  Danes,  Normans,  and  English,  as 
patriots  boasted,  was  now  diplomatically  conquered  without  draw- 


112  MEETINGS  OF  COMMISSIONERS  (1706). 

ing  a  sword  or  firing  a  shot.  Indeed,  when  the  Treaty  of  Union 
came  before  Parliament,  and  before  a  people  singularly  proud  of 
its  own  history,  this  was  the  general  opinion.  Mar  was  writing 
after  February  27,  1706,  when  the  queen  announced  the  choice 
of  Commissioners.^  Even  Carstares  appears  to  have  demurred  to 
the  English  ideas,  which  Portland  briefly  restated,  apparently  in 
answer  to  his  objections.^ 

Stair,  on  April  26,  reported  a  meeting  held  by  the  Scottish  Com- 
missioners. They  were  determined  to  retain  Presbytery,  their 
judicature,  and  their  laws,  by  express  articles  in  the  Treaty,  lest 
they  should  afterwards  be  altered  by  the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain,  in  which  the  Scottish  members  would  be  outvoted.  On 
the  other  hand,  "an  eminent  person  of  the  English  Commission" 
was  very  earnest  with  Stair  that  nothing  should  be  said  about 
Scottish  Church  government, — a  thing  already  secured, — as  open 
mention  would  give  the  Tories  a  chance  for  their  useful  cry,  "  The 
Church  in  Danger."  It  was,  indeed,  a  humorous  anomaly  that, 
in  one  nation,  Great  Britain,  Presbytery  should  be  allowed  to 
persecute  north  of  Tweed,  and  be  barely  tolerated  south  of  that 
river.  The  religious  question,  however,  tried  to  force  itself  on 
attention. 

After  the  two  sets  of  Commissioners  had  met,  and  done  much 
useful  business,  Leven  wrote  to  Carstares  about  the  complaints 
of  AthoU  and  other  "  people  of  quality "  anent  "  the  severities 
of  the  presbyteries  in  several  shires  against  the  episcopal  clergy." 
Loudoun  was  to  write  to  the  Lord  Advocate  "  that  matters  may 
be  managed  with  moderation  at  this  time  ..."  (June  11)."  The 
English  Tories  had  some  reason  for  their  dreaded  outcry.  Mean- 
while, from  a  letter  of  Leven  (April  27),  Carstares  must  have 
understood  that  the  Scottish  Commissioners  had  abandoned  all 
hope  of  any  but  an  incorporating  union.  They  were  not  going 
to  struggle  on  that  point. 

The  two  sets  of  Commissioners,  on  April  16,  met  in  different 
apartments  of  the  **  Cockpit "  in  Westminster :  in  another  room 
they  held  joint  meetings  for  the  exchange  of  papers  containing 
their  proposals  and  replies.  The  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York  were  on  the  English  Commission,  but  he  of  York,  a  high 
churchman,  adopted  the  attitude  of  Lockhart.  He  did  not  ap- 
prove of  the  curious  anomaly  of  Presbyterians  as  persecutors  in 
the  northern  part  of  the  new  nation  of  Great  Britain.     The  Duke 


TAXATION   AND   THE   EQUIVALENT.  II3 

of  Somerset,  a  descendant,  as  Mr  Mackinnon  observes,  of  the 
Somerset  who  won  Pinkie  fight,  and  was  concerned  in  a  proffered 
scheme  of  union  a  century  and  a  half  agone,  gave  historic  interest 
to  the  assembly ;  while  Cowper,  Somers,  Godolphin,  Harley,  and 
many  others,  represented  modern  politics.  The  Scots  gave  in,  as 
they  had  made  up  their  minds  to  do,  on  the  central  question  of 
an  incorporating  union,  before  the  news  of  Marlborough's  victory 
at  Ramilies  (May  23)  impressed  them  with  a  sense  of  the  weak- 
ness of  their  only  possible  ally,  France,  in  case  they  offered  re- 
sistance. A  slight  demur  was  offered  by  the  Scots  on  April  2  2  ; 
on  April  25  the  English  answered,  courteously  but  firmly,  that 
that  incorporation  was  "a  necessary  consequence  for  an  entire 
Union." '^  "Now  let  God  and  the  world  judge,"  cries  Lockhart, 
"  if  the  making  of  this  proposal  in  such  a  manner  was  not  a  bare- 
faced indignity  and  affront  to  the  Scots  nation  and  Parliament." 
The  Scots  "resiled  pitifully  and  meanly"  from  their  suggestion 
of  federation,  but  asked,  and  obtained,  national  reciprocity  in  trade.® 
At  home,  when  all  came  out,  the  Scots  "  treaters "  were  styled 
"traitors,"  and  were  the  occasion  of  much  eloquence  and  of  many 
broken  windows,  the  simple  rhetoric  of  the  mob. 

The  Scots  had  now  to  make  the  best  terms  they  could  for 
their  country  in  matters  of  detail.  Scots,  as  citizens  of  a  new 
nation.  Great  Britain,  would  be  taxed  as  British  subjects, — having 
equal  trading  rights,  they  must  pay  equal  taxes  and  duties; 
though,  on  the  one  hand,  they  had  no  responsibility  for  incurring 
English  national  debt,  nor,  on  the  other,  had  they  capital  and 
"  plant "  for  enjoying,  in  the  same  degree  as  their  southern  fellow- 
subjects,  their  new  commercial  opportunities.  No  subject  could 
well  be  more  intricate  than  the  adjustment  of  equal  incidence  of 
taxation  in  these  circumstances,  which  were  further  complicated  by 
the  differences  in  methods  of  collecting  taxes,  the  difference  in 
the  mode  of  life,  and  the  differences  in  weights  and  measures.  A 
committee  was  therefore  appointed  to  consider  the  revenue  and 
debt  of  either  country,  and  to  report.  Scotland  owed  no  stiver 
of  English  debt,  yet  her  contributions  would  go  in  great  part  to 
the  payment  of  that  debt.  It  was  proposed  that,  to  rectify  this, 
England  should  hand  over  to  Scotland  a  pecuniary  Equivalent.  It 
was  also  thought  proper  that  the  land  tax  of  Scotland  should  not 
rise,  proportionately,  above  the  English  maximum  of  a  nominal  four 
shillings  in  the  pound, — nominal,  because  that  tax  included  the  ex- 

VOL.    IV.  H 


114  THINGS  EXEMPT  FROM   TAXES. 

penses  of  collection  in  England.     The  whole  sum  should  not  exceed 
;;^48,ooo  yearly. 

On  May  lo  the  English  Commissioners  admitted  the  principle 
of  the  Equivalent.  De  Foe  says  that  this  was  the  most  anxious 
day,  and  that  men  most  eager  for  the  success  of  the  Treaty 
"apprehended  something  here  too  difficult  to  be  mastered,  and 
that  would  render  all  the  rest  abortive."^''  The  difficulties,  in- 
deed, are  conspicuously  complex.  Clerk  of  Penicuik,  a  young 
man  with  a  genius  for  commercial  calculations,  writes  that  he 
"  gave  the  greatest  application  possible  to  understand "  the  com- 
parative financial  conditions  of  England  and  of  Scotland,  where 
he  had  for  some  time  been  a  Commissioner  of  the  Public 
Accompts.^^  He  was  a  member  of  the  small  Joint-Committee 
which  was  aided,  as  regards  the  Equivalent,  by  Professor  Gregory, 
who  had  deserted  Edinburgh  in  1691  for  Oxford,  and  by  William 
Paterson  of  the  Darien  enterprise, — "bred  in  England  from  his 
infancy,"  says  Clerk,  whether  correctly  or  not.  Clerk  went  with 
Queensberry  to  see  Queen  Anne,  whom  he  found  in  an  agony  of 
gout,  her  face  red  and  spotted,  her  dress  squalid,  her  foot  in 
"nasty  bandages,"  while  she  kept  speaking  of  "my  people  of 
Scotland."  The  poor  queen  visited  the  Commissioners  several 
times,  and  listened  to  the  puzzling  minutes  of  their  proceedings. 

The  English  revenues  from  customs  and  excises  amounted  roughly 
to  ;;^2, 300,000 ;  those  of  Scotland  to  ;!^65,ooo,  but  that  revenue 
was  unburdened  by  debt.  The  two  peoples  might  pay  their  debts 
and  unite  their  resources,  or,  "  putting  the  general  accounts  of  debts 
and  stock  together,  the  English  might  make  good  the  inequalities 
to  the  Scots  some  other  way " — namely,  by  the  Equivalent :  thus 
De  Foe  states  the  case.  The  English,  on  May  10,  insisting  on 
equality  of  taxation,  agreed  to  "an  Equivalent  for  what  Scotland 
shall  be  taxed  towards  payment  of  the  debts  of  England  in  all 
particulars."  ^-  The  Scots  in  return  yielded  as  regarded  equality  of 
excise  "  on  ale,  beer,  rum,  cyder,  sweets,  low  wines,  aqua  vit?e,  and 
spirits,"  as  well  as  on  goods  exported  to  England  and  the  Colonies. 
But  in  regard  to  all  other  burdens  and  excises,  they  asked  that 
Scotland  might  have  a  breathing-space,  and  the  English  promised 
to  grant  this  or  pay  a  heavier  Equivalent.  So  the  stamped  paper, 
windows,  lights,  coal,  malt,  and  salt  of  Scotland  were  granted  a 
respite ;  the  Scottish  poor,  says  De  Foe,  lived  mainly  on  salted 
meats,  and  the  difference  in  price  of  salt  made  adjustment  peculi- 


LAW   AND   JUDICATURE.  II5 

arly  difficult.  The  English  imposts,  many  of  them,  were  war  taxes, 
and  were  about  to  expire. 

The  Scots  (May  17)  announced  that  the  "difference"  between 
them  and  the  English  "  is  brought  to  a  very  narrow  compass,"  but 
still  pleaded  for  a  period  of  general  exemption  from  all  burdens 
except  those  already  specified.  The  English  (May  18)  declined 
to  make  further  concessions  :  the  Scots  had  to  be  content  with  a 
few  slight  changes,  and  their  land  tax  was  fixed  at  a  maximum  of 
^48,000,  to  decline  in  proportion  to  the  English  land  tax,  then 
a  war  tax.  The  Scottish  proportion  is  small,  but  land  rents  in 
Scotland  were,  to  a  great  extent,  paid  in  chickens  and  manure, 
or  otherwise  in  kind  and  services,  — "  mail-duties,  kain,  arriage, 
carriage,  lock,  gowpen,  and  knaveship,"  as  Scott  says  in  the  case 
of  Davie  Deans.  The  glorious  successes  of  the  English  arms  on 
the  Continent  had  caused  all  things  taxable  to  be  taxed,  such  as 
"hawkers  and  pedlars,  hackney  coachmen,  births,  deaths"  (or  at 
least  burials),  "and  marriages,  glass  windows,  stamped  paper,  and 
the  like,"  as  De  Foe  ends  his  promiscuous  catalogue.  An  English 
citizen  could  not  even  expire  without  burdening  his  estate,  unless 
he  drowned  himself  in  deep  water  with  a  cannon  ball  fastened  to 
his  feet.  De  Foe  remarks  that  this  kind  of  taxation  "had  none 
of  the  material  to  work  on  in  Scotland " — there  were  few  glass 
windows,  and  almost  no  hackney  coaches, — "  while  others,"  like 
fines  on  birth,  death,  and  marriage,  "could  not  rationally  be  ex- 
pected from  them."^'  Indeed,  it  is  obvious  that  taxes  of  these 
kinds  would  not  have  increased  the  popularity  of  the  Union  in 
Scotland.  When  these  concessions  had  been  made  "  the  Union 
appeared  hopeful,"  and  the  small  Joint-Committee  laboured  at  the 
complicated  calculation  for  the  Equivalent  prepared  by  the  Savilian 
Professor  of  Astronomy,   Dr  Gregory. 

On  May  29  the  Scots  introduced  the  matter  of  judicature  and 
laws,  which  were  to  remain  unaltered,  "but  alterable  by  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain."  The  laws  regulating  private  rights  included 
heritable  jurisdictions,  and  these  were  not  abolished  till  after  the 
expedition  of  Prince  Charles  in  1745.  The  feudal  superiorities  of 
the  chiefs  were,  of  course,  the  main  strength  of  Jacobitism.  The 
English  Courts  were  to  have  no  right  to  review  or  alter  the  decisions 
of  the  Scots  Courts,  or  to  stay  their  execution.  Had  the  Parliament 
of  Great  Britain  not  been  allowed,  in  the  future,  to  modify  Scottish 
law  in  any  respect,  Scotland  would  have  had  no  legislature  at  all, 


Il6        SCOTTISH    PARLIAMENTARY   REPRESENTATION. 

the  friends  of  Union  argued ;  to  which  the  natural  reply  was  that,  in 
fact,  it  had  none,  and  that  this  circumstance  was  the  ground  of 
quarrel  with  the  Union.  To  the  British  ParHament — that  is,  to  the 
English  majority — it  was  left  to  decide  on  "  the  evident  utility  "  to 
Scottish  subjects  of  future  alterations  on  the  laws.  It  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  propriety  of  these  arrangements  could  only  be  tested  by  time 
and  experience,  and  easy  to  understand  the  natural  objections  urged 
by  patriotic  Scots.  They  still  regarded  themselves  as  separate  and 
distinct  from  Englishmen ;  they  did  not  project  their  imaginations 
into  a  thoroughly  united  new  nation,  and  their  failure  to  do  so 
was  only  human.  It  was  usual  to  tell  the  Scots  that  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Great  Britain  would  legislate  in  the  interests  of  Great 
Britain,  not  of  England.  But  no  Scot  could  feel  quite  confident 
of  that  while  English  members  were  in  a  vast  majority  over  Scottish 
members. 

On  June  7  the  English  proposed  that  the  Scottish  members  of 
the  British  House  of  Commons  should  number  thirty-eight.  The 
Scots  (June  11)  found  this  so  unsatisfactory  that  they  proposed 
a  conference,  which  was  held  on  June  12.^*  Reckoning  English 
and  Scots  proportions  of  pecuniary  contributions,  Scotland  would 
have  but  thirteen  members  ;  reckoning  by  population,  about  one 
hundred  and  seventy.  Scotland  finally  received  forty-five  members, 
with  sixteen  representative  peers,  elected  by  their  own  Estate.^^ 
Appeals  from  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Session  had  hitherto  been 
referred  to  the  Scottish  Parliament :  as  that  Parliament  was  no 
longer  to  exist,  they  were  now  to  come  before  the  House  of  Lords 
of  Great  Britain  (that  is,  of  course,  the  legal  members,  Scots  and 
English,  of  the  House),  who  thus  adjudicate  even  in  Scottish  ecclesi- 
astical cases.  In  the  way  of  ceremonial  badges,  the  flag  of  Britain 
was  to  bear  the  Cross  of  St  George  with  the  saltire  of  St  Andrew, 
'i'his  combination,  it  is  curious  to  note,  occurs  on  the  shield  of 
a  warrior  represented  on  a  Greek  vase  of  the  seventh  century  B.C. 
On  heraldic  bearings  employed  for  Scottish  national  purposes  the 
Lion,  with  double  tressure,  flowered  and  counter-flowered,  was  to  be 
on  the  dexter  side.'*^ 

The  Darien  affair  came  up,  introduced  by  Mar  on  June  21. 
The  Scots  proposed  that  the  rights  of  the  East  India  Company 
of  1695  should  remain  in  being,  or  be  bought  up  from  the  holders 
of  stock.  The  latter  alternative  was  adopted.  The  Scots  Com- 
pany could  not  be  allowed  to  join  in  the  amalgamation  of  the  two 


THE  TWENTV-FIVE   ARTICLES   (JULY    1706).  II7 

English  Companies  (1708),  for  the  Scots  Company  had  no  assets, 
and  was  deep  in  debt.  Holders  of  stock  were  therefore  to  be 
bought  out,  with  interest  at  five  per  cent,  up  to  May  i,  1707. 
For  the  whole  Equivalent  to  be  paid  by  England  the  English 
Commissioners  proposed  ;^398,o85,  los.  Part  was  to  pay  the 
Scottish  public  debt,  part  to  buy  out  Darien  Stock  holders,  the 
remainder  was  to  improve  fisheries  and  manufactures. 

On  July  23  the  Commissioners,  having  reduced  the  Treaty  to 
twenty-five  Articles,  presented  a  copy  to  Queen  Anne  :  three  copies 
were  made  for  the  English  Lords,  and  Commons,  and  the  Scottish 
Estates. 

All  had  gone  as  smoothly  as  could  be  expected,  but  the  Scots 
Parliament  met  on  October  3,  and  then  revived  the  din  of  battle, 
already  loud  in  many  pamphlets.  Queensberry  was  Commissioner, 
with  Mar  as  Secretary,  and  behaved  with  tact  and  good  temper. 
It  is  plain  that  he  was  well  served  by  spies,  and  used  his  information 
with  extraordinary  tact,  gentleness,  and  firmness.  Montrose — de- 
generate Marquis  ! — and  Roxburgh  joined  the  Unionists,  but  the 
preachers  "roared  against  the  wicked  Union  from  their  pulpits," 
says  Lockhart,  who  did  not  like  the  ministers  any  better  than  he 
liked  the  Union.  Their  zeal  cooled  presently,  when  Parliament 
passed  an  Act  for  the  Security  of  the  Kirk. 

De  Foe  had  come  down  to  Scotland  as  Harley's  spy,  and  as 
pamphleteer  for  the  Union,  and  describes  the  four  party  groups 
which  opposed  it.  First  came  the  Jacobites,  who,  in  1705,  to 
which  date  we  must  return,  had  been  approached  by  Louis  XIV., 
through  Colonel  Hooke,  an  ex-partisan  of  Monmouth,  but  had 
distinguished  themselves  by  their  caution.  To  his  "cousins," 
Hamilton  and  Gordon,  and  to  Errol,  Marischal,  Montrose,  Home, 
and  Drummond,  James  wrote  letters ;  while  his  mother,  Queen 
Mary,  also  kept  her  eye  on  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  Struan, 
Lochiel,  Clanranald,  and  Gideon  Murray  of  Elibank,  as  it  appears. 
The  nobles  replied  with  courteous  generalities,  Hamilton  thanking 
the  king  for  the  pity  which  he  bestowed  on  the  sad  state  of  this 
nation,  "  which  suffers  from  the  attentats  of  the  English."  (August 
22,  1705.)!^  Hamilton  added  that  the  loyal  party  was  much 
divided.  The  Bishop  of  Edinburgh  asked  for  the  landing  of  large 
forces  both  in  England  and  Scotland,  which  was  the  last  thing 
that  Louis  had  in  his  mind.^^  The  Bishop  also  wanted  the 
Chevalier  de  St  George  to  impose  heavy  disabilities  on  Catholics, 


Il8  JACOBITE   INTRIGUES  (1705-1706). 

if  he  were  restored.  There  was  no  comfort  in  the  Bishop !  In 
fact,  nobody  was  enthusiastic  except  the  Duchesses  and  the 
Countesses,  and  an  old  Lady  Largo,  a  friend  of  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton.  Errol  had  warned  Hooke,  on  his  arrival  (August  1705), 
that  Hamilton  was  not  to  be  trusted,  and  had  an  eye  on  the 
throne  for  himself.  "  His  partisans  do  not  follow  him — he  follows 
his  partisans."  Marischal  seemed  to  Hooke  to  be  the  best  man 
of  the  Jacobite  party :  he  would  be  a  great  man  if  he  would 
drink  less  wine. 

At  last,  when  Hamilton  met  Hooke,  in  the  dark, — they  had  been 
acquainted  in  1689, — the  Duke  explained  that  he  wished  to  be  able 
to  swear  and  save  his  oath  that  he  had  not  seen  Hooke.  He  was 
loyal  to  young  James,  but  the  party  was  rent  by  divisions,  and 
nothing  was  ripe  for  action.  Queensberry  had  led  away  fifteen 
of  his  adherents,  and  was  buying  the  votes  of  poor  North-country 
members.  "  We  don't  want  to  fight,"  said  the  Duke,  "  merely  ta 
oblige  France  by  making  a  diversion."  In  short,  the  Duke  wished 
to  let  things  linger  on  till  the  death  of  Queen  Anne,  and  then 
appear  as  a  candidate  for  that  airy  crown  which  his  House  had 
chased  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years.  Presently  the  day  began 
to  filter  through  the  shutters  of  the  room  where  this  odd  interview 
was  held :  Hooke  retired  to  Lady  Largo's  house,  and  on  a  later 
visit  to  the  Duke  in  Holyrood  found  no  more  satisfaction.  The 
Jacobites  thought  that  they  could  raise  12,000  foot  and  5000  horse 
in  the  Lowlands,  with  8000  of  the  clans. ^^  Lockhart  deemed 
Hooke  a  man  of  mettle  but  rash,  and  with  justice  held  that  he 
was  rather  anxious  to  procure  a  diversion  for  France  than  to  restore 
King  James.  The  Jacobites  sent  a  Captain  Straton,  for  long  an 
active  agent,  who  was  well  known  to  Government,  to  France, — 
their  enterprise  went  no  further,-*^  Indeed  Queensberry's  know- 
ledge, and  the  use  to  which  he  could  put  it  if  he  chose,  muzzled 
Hamilton  throughout. 

Such  was  the  position,  and  such  were  the  prospects,  of  the 
Jacobite  party,  when  the  Treaty  of  Union  came  before  Parliament. 
After  describing  the  Jacobites,  De  Foe  sketches  the  Episcopalians, 
not  necessarily  Jacobites,  who  foresaw  that  the  Union  would  fix 
the  presbyterial  yoke  on  their  necks  for  ever,  and  debar  their 
English  co-religionists  from  aiding  them  in  their  efforts  for  its 
removal.  In  religion  there  would  be  no  Union, — there  would  still 
be   the   two    nations,   the   godly  and    the   prclatic ;    and    now  the- 


.   RESISTANCE   TO   UNION    (1706).  II9 

prelatists,  south  of  Tweed,  would  be  bound  to  "  oppose  and  sup- 
press "  their  brethren  north  of  Tweed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a 
measure  of  toleration  for  the  worshippers  at  the  altare  Damascenuni 
was  not  long  afterwards  introduced. 

Thirdly,  quite  at  the  opposite  pole,  were  Presbyterians  who 
deemed  the  Union  with  a  prelatic  nation  to  be  a  left-hand  falling 
off  and  a  Cause  of  Wrath.  The  "Society  men,"  Cameronians  and 
followers  of  other  popular  preachers,  were  of  this  party,  with  which 
the  Jacobites  tried,  as  we  shall  see,  to  enter  into  an  incongruous 
alliance. 

Finally,  there  was  the  party  of  patriots,  full  of  historical  sentiment 
and  rich  in  federatists  and  constitution -makers,  very  ready  with 
tongue  and  pen.  With  them,  in  resistance  to  the  Union,  was  the 
multitude  which,  in  Scotland,  has  always  had  a  keen  love  of  old 
national  glories  and  of  old  national  sorrows.  "  It  wad  be  lang  before 
it  makes  up  for  Flodden,"  said  the  Border  quack  mentioned  by 
Sir  Walter  Scott,  when  told  that  his  favourite  prescriptions, 
"laudamy  and  calamy,"  might  imperil  the  lives  of  his  English 
patients.  The  crowd  were  of  the  blacksmith's  mind.  The  leaders 
of  this  Country  party  were  much  divided  by  party  and  personal 
piques  and  ambitions. 

The  Royal  Message  strongly  recommended  the  Union,  as  what 
the  majority  of  both  nations  had  long  desired.  Queensberry,  as 
Commissioner,  and  Seafield,  spoke  in  the  same  strain.  Order  was 
given  for  the  printing  of  the  Articles  of  Union.  At  once  the  war 
of  cries  and  pamphlets  began  afresh.  The  commons  foresaw  in- 
crease of  taxation,  loss  of  custom  and  of  credit,  the  Parliament  de- 
serting the  country,  and  the  very  Honours  of  Scotland — the  Regalia 
— being  removed,  as  they  feared,  to  England.  The  trading  classes 
deemed  that  their  commerce  with  France  M-as  more  profitable  than 
their  commerce  with  England  could  ever  be,  though  the  former 
brought  only  wine,  brandy,  and  luxuries,  while  the  latter  mainly 
brought  ready  money.  The  poor  held  that  they  "  would  neither 
have  food  to  eat  nor  beer  to  drink." 

Their  representatives  would  be  out-voted,  their  liberties  would 
be  sold,  and  the  British  Parliament,  in  which  Bishops  sat  in  the 
vestments  of  Baal  and  Chemosh,  would  destroy  the  Kirk.  Episco- 
pacy in  Scotland  would  at  least  be  tolerated, — "  a  thing  most  toler- 
able, and  not  to  be  endured."  There  was  "an  universal  cry  that 
this  was  a  plain  breach  of  the  National  Covenant,"  says  De  Foe,  but 


120  DE   FOE'S  DESCRIPTIONS  (1706). 

the  cry  can  hardly  have  been  universal,  and  the  Covenant  had  long 
lain  in  as  many  fragments  as  "that  twice-battered  god  of  Palestine," 

A  pamphlet  by  one  Hodges  (not  a  Scottish  name)  gave  two-and- 
thirty  conflicting  interests  of  England  and  Scotland :  many  other 
pamphlets  of  the  same  sort  were  eagerly  read,  while  the  busy  De 
Foe  replied  in  a  series  of  essays.  He  found  that  "men  will  be 
silenced,  yet  not  at  all  convinced,"  reason  being  about  the  last 
motive  that  controls  public  opinion  on  the  first  blush  of  a  new 
proposal. 

There  was  in  Parliament  (October  12)  great  opposition  to  read- 
ing the  Articles  of  Union.  Constituents  should  be  consulted,  it 
was  argued,  before  the  Constitution  was  destroyed.  The  reading 
was  carried,  however,  by  a  large  majority ;  and  later,  by  a  majority 
of  sixty-four  it  was  decided  to  consider  the  Articles.  Efforts  for 
the  proclamation  of  a  general  fast  were  made, — the  Kirk's  old 
resource,  as  before  the  meeting  of  the  Parliament  of  March  1566, 
which  was  dissolved  on  the  murder  of  Riccio.  The  great  majority 
of  sixty-four  (or  sixty-six)  was  of  good  omen,  however,  to  Unionists, 
and  the  Commission  of  the  General  Assembly,  so  far,  was  behav- 
ing with  moderation  ;  but  a  reply  to  their  Address  to  Parliament 
was  postponed,  which  gave  rise  to  suspicions. 

On  October  23  a  Committee  of  three  members  from  each  of 
the  Estates  was  appointed  to  examine,  with  the  aid  of  skilled 
mathematicians,  the  proportions  of  the  Equivalent,  but  the  amateur 
calculators  of  the  populace  were  now  busy  in  making  disturbances 
out  of  doors.  "  Here  is  a  most  confused  state  of  affairs,"  wrote 
De  Foe  from  Holyrood  to  Harley  ;  "it  seems  to  me  the  Presby- 
terians are  hard  at  work  to  restore  Episcopacy,  and  the  rabble 
to  bring  to  pass  the  Union.  We  have  had  two  mobs,  and  expect 
a  third.  .  .  .  The  first  was  in  the  Assembly  or  Commission  of 
Assembly,  where  very  strange  things  were  talked  of  and  in  a 
strange  manner."  Nothing  fresh  was  being  said  by  the  wilder 
preachers,  a  minority, — it  was  the  old  story.  "  The  power,  Anglice 
tyranny,  of  the  Church  was  described  to  the  life,  and  jure  diuino 
insisted  upon,  to  the  prejudice  of  civil  authority.  .  .  ."  "  In  general 
they  are  the  wisest  weak  men,  the  falsest  honest  men,  and  the 
steadiest  unsettled  people  ever  I  met  with,"  says  De  Foe. 

The  lay  mobs  in  October  were  "  Scots  rabble,  the  worst  of 
its  kind."  They  followed  Hamilton's  chair  with  huzzas,  and  be- 
sieged Johnstone,  the  late  Lord  Provost,  one  of  the  "Treaters," 


BELHAVEN'S   RHETORIC.  121 

in  his  house.  They  were  broken  up  by  Captain  Richardson  with 
the  Guard,  and  a  few  of  them  were  lodged  in  the  Tolbooth 
Later  they  collected  again,  put  out  lights,  broke  windows,  and 
made  De  Foe  remember  the  fate  of  the  De  Witts.  Queensberry 
bade  the  Provost  send  for  the  Guard  "into  the  city,  which  they 
say  is  what  never  was  admitted  before,"  and  Argyll,  with  the 
Horse  Guards,  rode  at  their  head.  Military  precautions  were 
later  adopted,  and  the  efforts  by  the  mob  were  so  futile,  after 
Leven,  from  the  castle,  had  garrisoned  the  ports,  that  the  Union 
had  obviously  little  to  fear  from  "the  rascal  multitude."-^  Leven 
and  the  rest  were  congratulated  by  Harley  (Nov.  21,  1706)  on 
"their  cool,  sedate,  determined  steadiness."  On  the  day  after 
the  riot  an  attack  was  made  on  the  Privy  Council  for  bringing 
the  soldiers  into  the  city,  but  the  proceeding  was  approved  of 
by  a  majority  of  fifty-six.* 

In  the  House,  obstruction  and  enforced  dilatoriness  was  the 
method  of  the  Opposition  :  the  English  Parliament  should  speak 
first — the  constituencies  should  be  consulted.  Hostile  petitions 
were  presented  from  the  shires  of  Stirling  and  Dumbarton,  and 
the  towns  of  Linlithgow,  Dunkeld,  and  Dysart.  On  November  4, 
after  much  speaking  and  voting,  the  First  Article  was  read.  Seton 
of  Pitmedden,  a  man  of  ability,  spoke,  rehearsing  the  obvious 
advantages  of  the  Union,  the  absence  of  any  prosperous  alterna- 
tive, and  the  examples  of  successful  unions,  as  in  Scotland  itself, 
when  the  Pictish  and  Scottish  kingdoms  became  one  with  the 
English  lowlands  south  of  Tweed.  Then  uprose  Lord  Belhaven, 
"a  rough,  fat,  black,  noisy  man,  more  like  a  butcher  than  a  lord," 
says  an  unfriendly  observer ;  while  a  friendly  hand  depicts  the 
peer  as  "of  a  healthy  constitution  and  a  black  complexion  and 
graceful  manly  presence."  Belhaven  had  been  of  the  Revolu- 
tion party  from  the  first,  but  Darien  had  wakened  the  Scottish 
patriot  in  him,  and  all  the  pent-up  eloquence  of  his  nature  now 
broke  forth.  Without  replying  to  Seton,  he  made  a  long  set 
speech — a  Scots  following  of  the  classical  model  of  Demosthenes, 
as  far  as  he  could  compass  it.  This  flight  of  rhetoric  was  printed, 
and  was  famous  in  its  day.  He  kept  remarking,  "  I  think  I  see 
many  phantasms  of  the  deplorable  future,  such  as  the  Kirk 
descending   from   its   rock   and   fighting  on   the   plain   with    Jews, 

*  The  difficulty  about  bringing  regular  soldiers  into  the  city  recurred  at  the 
Porteous  Riot. 


.122  ATTITUDE   OF   THE   KIRK. 

Papists,  Socinians,  Arminians,  and  Anabaptists."  He  beheld  "the 
Macallanmores  [and  Macallan  is  more  accurate  than  Macallum] 
receiving  less  homage  and  respect  than  a  petty  English  exciseman." 
Vassalage  would  cease, — so  far  his  lordship  was  a  true  seer ;  but 
the  prospect  did  not  intimidate  Macallanmore  himself,  who  was 
a  Unionist.  The  impoverished  burghers  "walked  their  desolate 
streets,"  in  this  vision,  ruined  by  English  companies.  The  trades- 
men would  drink  water,  not  ale,  and  their  porridge  would  not  be 
salted  with  salt.  The  thoughtful  ploughman  would  dread  the 
expense  of  burial,  and  be  doubtful  as  to  whether  he  should  marry 
"or  do  worse."  Caledonia  sat  forlorn  among  them,  wrapped  in 
her  plaid,  attending  the  dirk,  and  murmuring  with  her  latest 
breath,  et  tu  quoque,  mi  fill  I  These  things  must  not  be;  some 
Joseph  or  Judah  must  arrive,  some  ram  must  be  caught  in  some 
thicket,  some  political  "  patricide "  must  be  tied  up  in  a  sack 
(called  a  culetis),  with  a  cock,  a  viper,  an  ape,  and  thrown  out 
to  sea.  Belhaven  spoke  of  Hannibal,  of  cockatrice's  eggs,  of 
spolia  opima,  and  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Overcome  with  emotion, 
he  went  down  on  his  knees  and  appealed  to  Queensberry  to  re- 
concile all  divisions.  Queensberry,  no  doubt  also  overcome  or 
dreading  the  sack,  cock,  viper,  and  monkey,  was  silent ;  and 
Belhaven  was  on  his  legs  again,  moving  that  the  Fourth  Article 
of  the  Treaty  be  read,  for  to  accept  the  first  was  to  surrender 
everything.22     Marchmont  replied  with  a  gibe. 

Meanwhile,  petitions  against  the  Union  flew  as  thick  as  the 
stones  thrown  by  the  boys  at  Queensberry's  carriage.  "  The  Kirk 
are  au  tvood"  wrote  De  Foe  (meaning  a'  zvud,  all  mad) ;  but  the 
First  Article  was  voted  on  King  William's  birthday,  by  a  majority 
of  thirty  votes,  the  Peers  being  in  a  large  proportion  for  the 
affirmative  ;  while  Atholl  headed  a  list  of  some  sixty  protesters, 
including  Hamilton,  Errol,  Marischal,  Annandale,  and  several  other 
earls,  with  Lockhart,  Balmerino,  Fletcher  of  Saltoun,  Beaton  of 
Balfour,  Graham  of  Fintry,  Ogilvy  of  Boyne,  and  other  Cavaliers. 

"A  broil  among  the  ministers"  was  the  next  hope  of  the  anti- 
Unionists,  and  on  November  8  a  petition  from  the  Commissioners 
of  the  General  Assembly  was  read.  The  Commissioners  objected 
to  the  Anglican  Sacramental  Test  administered  to  Scots  in  places 
of  trust,  and  generally  to  oaths  contrary  to  Presbyterian  principles. 
The  Coronation  Oath  should  bind  the  occupant  of  the  throne  to 
maintain  the  Church  of  Scotland.     There  should  be  a  judicatory 


CHANCES  OF  A  RISING  (1706).  1 23 

"  for  redressing  grievances  such  as  the  growth  of  popery."  After 
the  Union,  Scotland  would  be  subject  to  a  Parliament  containing 
twenty-six  bishops,  "contrary  to  our  known  principles  and  cove- 
nants." Remedies  were  requested  for  these  grievances.^^  "  I  must 
own  this  does  some  harm,"  wrote  De  Foe  to  Harley,  but  the 
country  had  expected  from  the  Kirk  a  general  protest  against  the 
Union  like  those  sent  in  by  many  of  the  burghs.  Several  of  the 
laity  on  the  Assembly  Commission,  including  Marchmont,  dissented 
from  it.  An  Act  of  Security  for  the  Kirk  was  passed,  the  English 
Sacramental  Test  was  not  interfered  with,  but  the  danger  from  new 
oaths  was  averted,  the  maintenance  of  the  Kirk  was  inserted  in 
the  Coronation  Oath,  and  a  court  for  the  plantation  of  kirks 
was  established  in  a  separate  Act.  Lockhart  observes  that  the 
preachers  were  at  first  very  much  opposed  to  the  Union,  but  the 
lay  members  — "  none  of  the  Cavaliers  ever  desiring  such  an 
employment" — kept  them  in  order.  "The  brethren  for  the  most 
part  were  guilty  of  sinful  silence."^*  The  canniness  of  Carstares 
had  much  weight  in  their  Councils,  This  new  charter  of  the  Kirk 
made  her  establishment  a  fundamental  and  unalterable  part  of  the 
Union.  But  everything  is  subject  to  change,  and  the  Dissenters 
now  poll  a  heavy  vote.  The  Presbyterians  were  not  satisfied  with 
what  they  got, — "  the  threatenings  of  the  Church  party  are  very  highl- 
and plain,"  writes  De  Foe  to  Harley  (November  16). 

The  Articles  concerning  trade  were  then  approached,  and 
various  modifications  were  made  as  to  malt,  while  the  cry  of 
"  robbing  a  poor  man  of  his  beer "  was  raised.  De  Foe  wrote  to 
Harley  that  he  induced  the  Committee  to  put  amendments  about 
peas,  oats,  beer,  and  so  forth,  into  an  Act  explanatory  of  the 
Articles.-^  He  and  Paterson  were  constantly  consulted,  and  found 
that  great  economic  ignorance  prevailed,  especially  as  to  the  con- 
sumption of  salt,  which  was  much  exaggerated. 

He  had  spies  everywhere,  and  was  all  things  to  all  men.  "  With 
the  Glasgow  mutineers  I  am  to  be  a  fish -merchant,  with  the 
Aberdeen  men  a  woollen-,  with  the  Perth  and  Western  men  a 
linen -manufacturer."  He  posed  as  a  glass -maker,  a  salt -maker, 
and,  most  improbable  of  all,  as  a  gentleman  of  property. 

From  the  second  week  in  November  onwards  the  country  was  in 
a  condition  of  real  danger.  While  little  was  visible  on  the  surface 
except  wild  but  vague  popular  tumults,  especially  at  Glasgow,  the 
Jacobites    had    arranged    that    Highlanders    should    slip   in   small 


124  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  CAMERONIANS. 

Tiumbers  into  Edinburgh,  while  they  at  least  persuaded  themselves 
that  8000  armed  western  Whigs,  whom  they  call  "  Cameronians," 
would  join  the  Highlanders,  and,  as  they  said,  "raise  the  Parlia- 
ment "  and  break  off  the  Union.  This  state  of  affairs  is  with 
•difficulty  to  be  understood,  for  the  evidence  has  been  mainly 
the  testimony  of  Lockhart,  from  which  dates  are  absent,  and 
the  'Memoirs  of  John  Ker  of  Kersland,'  published  in  1726. 
Lockhart  knew  all  that  was  known  to  the  Jacobite  organisers, 
while  Kersland  represents  himself  as  the  adviser  of  the  Camer- 
onians and  the  agent  of  Queensberry.  He  was  not,  indeed,  a 
member  of  any  of  the  secret  societies  of  the  Remnant,  but,  as 
a  Crawford  who  had  married  the  Kersland  heiress,  he  represented 
both  that  Presbyterian  family  and  his  brother,  who  had  led 
the  Cameronians  to  join  Argyll  in  1685  and  had  been  stopped 
by  the  prophet  Peden,  who,  in  his  clairvoyant  way,  saw  Argyll 
already  a  prisoner.  By  his  own  showing,  Ker  was  an  amusingly 
unscrupulous  professional  spy,  and  his  evidence  must  be  taken 
with  all  caution.  Historians  have  so  far  accepted  it  as  to  call 
him  "the  Cameronian  leader."  Mr  Hill  Burton,  Mr  Mackinnon, 
and  Mr  Mathieson,  all  use  this  phrase ;  and  the  famous  Patrick 
Walker,  a  contemporary,  and  himself  a  sufferer  during  the  Restora- 
tion, adopted  Ker's  statement  of  his  proceedings.-'' 

Having  read  Kersland's  Memoirs,  in  1897  the  present  writer 
deemed  it  desirable  to  consult,  for  disproof  or  corroboration,  the 
manuscript  Minutes  of  the  Cameronian  Societies  in  the  library 
of  the  then  Free  Church  of  Scotland's  New  College  in  Edin- 
burgh.* Access  to  these  documents  was  refused,  and,  in  a 
magazine  article  ('Blackwood's  Magazine,'  December  1897),  the 
writer,  while  mentioning  that  access  to  documentary  evidence 
was  denied  to  him,  told  Kersland's  story,  remarking  that  he  was 
confessedly  "a  complicated  liar,"  and,  according  to  Lockhart, 
had  been  guilty  of  forgery.  Following  Lockhart,  the  Cameronians 
were  represented  as  temporarily  Jacobites, — almost  certainly  an 
error.  Persons  of  similar  sentiments  were,  in  1706,  entangled  with 
the  Jacobites  in  a  joint  effort  to  disperse  Parliament,  if  we  may 
credit  better  witnesses  than  Kersland.  Kersland  thus  appeared 
as  "the  Cameronian  Leader,"  just  as  he  does  in  the  works  of 
the    historians    already    cited.      The   writer    was    then    denounced 

•  The  majority  of  the  then  Free  Church  is  now  "  llic  United  Free  Church"; 
the  small  minority  is  "  the  Free  Church  " 


THE   CAMERONIANS.  12$ 

for  his  "recklessness  of  statement  and  disregard  of  historical 
accuracy." 

His  censor,  an  eminent  student  who  was  permitted  to  peruse 
the  guarded  documents,  was  able  to  state  that  the  Minutes  of 
the  Cameronian  Societies  contained  no  reference  to  Kersland 
or  his  alleged  proceedings.  Moreover,  though  the  historians 
already  cited  ignore  the  fact,  a  flat  denial  of  Ker's  knowledge 
of  the  Cameronian  "  secrets "  and  "  purposes "  was  given  in 
a  Cameronian  book  of  1731.  Finally,  a  certain  Cameronian 
declaration  of  1707  was  in  contradiction  with  Kersland's  ac- 
count of  the  matter. 2^ 

As  to  these  contributions  to  accurate  knowledge,  it  is  (i) 
impossible  for  persons  who  have  not  been  allowed  to  read  the 
Minutes  to  know  how  far  they  contain  a  full  and  candid  state- 
ment of  all  the  proceedings,  some  of  them,  perhaps,  of  perilous 
consequence,  in  which  the  Societies  were  concerned.  Next,  (2) 
the  book  of  1731,  in  which  it  is  averred  that  Kersland  was 
"  never  unite  "  with  the  "  Dissenters  "  (such  is  the  phrase),  "  never 
convened  them  at  Sanquhar  or  anywhere  else,"  "  was  an  entire 
stranger  unto  their  secrets  and  a  perfect  foreigner  unto  their 
purposes,"  and  so  forth,  is  not  official  but  anonymous ;  and  the 
writer  speaks  of  himself  simply  as  "  the  Author,"  a  private 
Christian,  not  as  a  Cameronian  Committee,  appointed  on 
August  7,  1727,  "to  consider  Carnwath's  and  Kersland's  Memoirs, 
together  with  Patrick  Walker's  scandalous  pamphlet,  and  to  give 
a  short  answer  thereto,  in  order  to  wipe  off  their  false  aspersions." 
The  aspersions  (3)  of  Lockhart  of  Carnwath  are  not  wiped  off, 
nor  so  much  as  mentioned,  after  four  years  since  the  appointment 
of  the  Committee.  The  aspersions  of  Kersland  and  the  scandalous 
Patrick  Walker  are  not  wiped  off  by  the  Committee  of  1727 
already  cited,  but  are  refuted  in  the  matter  of  a  Dissenting 
Declaration  of  October  1707,  by  the  satisfactory  process  of  citing 
that  document.  Here  the  anonymous  writer  certainly  triumphs, 
whoever  he  may  have  been.^^ 

It  will  appear,  from  evidence  presently  to  be  cited,  that  large 
numbers  of  the  godly  in  the  West,  whether,  technically  speaking, 
"  Cameronians "  or  not,  were  led  into  promises  of  alliance  with 
the  Highlanders  in  the  early  winter  of  1706,  and  were  prepared 
to  join  in  "raising  the  Parliament,"  while  Kersland  exercised  an 
important  and  salutary  influence  in  preventing  this  act,  and  there- 


126  CUNNINGHAM'S  INTRIGUES   (1706). 

fore  in  preventing  a  probable  civil  war.  The  evidence  of  Lock- 
hart  to  the  designs  of  "a  vast  number  of  people  in  the  West,  and 
chiefly  the  Cameronians,"  was  derived  from  Cunningham  of  Eckatt 
(the  place  name  is  variously  spelled),  a  man  of  strict  Presbyterian 
principles.  He  had  been  an  officer  in  a  regiment  quartered  in  the 
disturbed  Highlands,  had  been  a  leader  of  the  Darien  expedition  ; 
but  his  regiment  was  disbanded  after  the  Peace  of  Ryswick,  and 
in  1705  he  was  still  soliciting  Parliament  for  jQ2']o  of  arrears. 
He  was  promised  payment  "when  the  money  came  in."^^ 

The  Western  malcontents,  according  to  Lockhart,  who  relies 
on  Cunningham,  "divided  themselves  into  regiments,  chose  their 
officers,  provided  themselves  with  horses  and  arms,  mentioned 
the  restoration  of  the  king  as  the  most  feasible  means  to  save 
their  country,"  and  were  willing  to  join  the  Northern  Jacobites 
"  for  the  defence  of  their  common  native  country."  They  sent 
emissaries  "to  try  the  pulses  of  those  members  of  Parliament 
who  were  against  the  Union,"  and  the  naturally  discontented 
Cunningham  of  Eckatt,  "  being  altogether  of  the  Presbyterian 
principles,"  "  was  soon  known  to  these  Western  negotiators  and 
entirely  trusted  by  them."  Cunningham  revealed  this  to  Brisbane 
of  Bishopston,  saying  that  he  found  the  negotiators  "of  opinion 
that  there  was  no  way  to  save  the  nation  but  by  first  raising  the 
Parliament  and  then  declaring  for  King  James."  The  latter 
clause  might  be  a  ruse  of  the  negotiators,  or  of  Cunningham,  to 
bring  in  the  Jacobites  for  the  sole  purpose  of  dispersing  the 
Parliament,  Brisbane  communicated  all  to  Lockhart,  and  his 
friends  apprised  AthoU  and  Hamilton.  AthoU  promised  that 
his  clansmen  would  secure  the  Pass  of  Stirling  ;  Hamilton  "seemed 
to  approve,"  but  "was  shy."  Lockhart  and  Cochrane  of  Kil- 
maronock  gave  Cunningham  fifty  pounds,  and  promised  support 
for  his  family,  if  he  fell,  and  Cunningham  set  out  for  the  West.^'^ 
No  dates  are  given,  but  his  journey  was  apparently  in  late 
November  or  early  December.  We  shall  later  give  irrefragable 
proof  that  Cunningham  did  "plot  with  these  people,"  the  Western 
fanatics,  "  to  raise  a  rebellion." 

We  now  turn  to  De  Foe's  letters  from  Edinburgh  to  Harley. 
On  October  29,  after  referring  to  the  Edinburgh  mobs  which 
attacked  Sir  Patrick  Johnstone  and  cheered  Hamilton,  he  ex- 
presses pain  at  an  anti-Unionist  sermon,  preached  in  St  Giles'  by 
a  country  parson,  before  the  Commissioners,     "They  are,  now  a- 


KERSLAND   AND   DE   FOE   (1707).  12/ 

going  to  hold  a  fast  against  the  Union  all  over  the  Kingdom,  and 
give  the  ministers  an  occasion  to  preach  and  pray  against  it."  But 
the  official  address  of  the  Kirk  *'  supposes  the  Union  as  real  and 
certain "  (November  9),  for  the  Kirk  officially  was,  if  not  en- 
thusiastic for  the  Union,  the  reverse  of  incendiary  in  opposition 
to  it.  Hamilton  (November  12)  was  closeted  for  four  hours 
with  Queensberry,  who,  it  becomes  plain,  knew  things  against 
Hamilton  which  gave  him  a  secure  hold  over  that  dark  and  timid 
plotter.  On  November  13  De  Foe  writes  that  there  are  more 
Highlanders  in  the  town  than  have  ever  been  known.  "  Indeed 
they  are  formidable  fellows,  ..."  each  man  "armed  with  a 
broadsword,  target,  pistol  or  perhaps  two,  at  his  girdle  a  dagger." 
People  were  uneasy,  and  the  clansmen  kept  steadily  dropping  in, 
crossing  Forth  by  Queensferry  and  Leith,  as  the  days  went  on. 

"  At  Dumfries  they  have  burned  the  Articles  of  Union  at  the 
market-place."  As  De  Foe  writes  thus  on  "November  13,"  he 
must  use  Old  Style,  for  the  burning  of  the  Articles  of  Union  is 
always  dated  on  November  20.  Now  this  affair  of  Dumfries, 
and  of  the  Declaration  issued  by  the  burners,  is  described  by 
Kersland  in  his  Memoirs,  and  we  shall  prove  that  Kersland  was, 
in  De  Foe's  opinion,  an  agent  of  his  own.  According  to  Kersland, 
Queensberry  sent  Sir  David  Dalrymple  to  bring  that  rogue  to 
his  presence.  When  he  came,  Queensberry  told  him  that  he 
knew  that  the  Highlanders  and  "  Cameronians "  were  about  to 
unite  to  disperse  the  Parliament.  The  Cameronians  were  to 
meet  near  Sanquhar,  on  the  Nith.  The  results  of  the  plot  would 
be  the  opportunity  of  France  and  the  Jacobites.  Would  Kersland 
use  his  family  influence  with  the  "Cameronians"  to  spoil  the 
plan?  Kersland  was  prevailed  on  to  do  what  he  could,  but 
stipulated  for  a  permission,  under  the  Privy  Seal,  to  "enter  into 
their  measures"  in  appearance.  He  was  promised  such  a  per- 
mission (he  got  it  in  the  following  year),  left  Edinburgh,  and 
met  the  "  Cameronians  "  at  Killochside,  near  Sanquhar.  He  made 
a  humble  but  sympathetic  speech,  and  they  burned  the  Articles 
of  Union  at  Dumfries,  and  issued  a  Declaration  entirely  devoid  of 
Cameronian  phraseology,  and  owning  "  Her  Majesty,"  Queen  Anne, 
whom  the  Cameronians  had  publicly  disowned  on  May  21,  1703, 
as  uncovenanted,  and  "not  accepting  of  the  qualifications  of  a 
covenanted  subject."  ^^  The  terms  of  the  paper  of  Dumfries 
show  that  it  was  not  the  work  of  the  strict  Cameronians.^- 


128  "PIERCE"  AND   KERSLAND. 

The  proclamation  and  burning  were  done  in  the  best  manner, 
"  by  a  considerable  party  of  horse  and  foot  under  arms,  with  sound 
of  trumpet  and  beat  of  drum."  Lockhart  speaks  of  them  as 
numbering  some  two  thousand.  Kersland  sent  a  message  to 
Queensberry,  explaining  that  the  proceedings  were  "to  keep  up 
to  the  decorum  that  was  expected,"  and  that,  in  the  interests  of 
decorum,  it  might  be  necessary  to  burn  the  houses  of  a  few 
Unionists.  These  performances  Kersland  winked  at,  as  safety- 
valves  :  the  point  was  to  keep  the  "  Cameronians  "  from  marching 
on  Edinburgh,  where  many  Highlanders  were  already  waiting  for 
them. 

De  Foe  now  reported  (November  13)  that  the  troops  of  Govern- 
ment were  few  and  disaffected,  and  that  their  officers  owned  that 
they  dare  not  answer  for  the  men.  Some  1500  soldiers,  good  or 
bad,  were  all  that  Queensberry  had  at  call,  and  De  Foe  suggested 
the  perilous  expedient  of  massing  English  forces  on  the  Border. 
An  invasion  by  them  would  have  united  Scotland  in  arms,  we 
may  presume.  On  November  16  he  sends  a  "Cameronian"  ad- 
dress from  the  Rev.  Mr  Hepburn,  mad  in  zeal.  "  They  exercise 
their  men,  and  appear  with  arms  and  drums  in  Glasgow."  A 
preacher  tells  him  that,  but  for  the  heavy  rains,  15,000  men 
would  have  come  to  Edinburgh.  Stair  (November  26)  wishes 
he  could  hear  of  English  troops  in  the  north  of  England  and 
Ireland :  "  I  long  to  hear  of  the  troop.s."  On  November  30 
De  Foe  writes,  "  the  war  is  begun  " ;  the  Galloway  and  Hamilton 
men  are  to  meet  three  hundred  from  Glasgow.  The  Glasgow 
handful  were  but  rabble,  led  by  a  common  fellow,  Finlay,  a 
Jacobite,  who  was  imprisoned.  In  this  letter  De  Foe  says : 
*'  I  had  heard  of  the  West  country  men's  resolutions,  and  purposed 
to  have  gone  among  them  myself,"  but  "  Mr  Pierce,  ivhom  you 
kno7v  of,  offering  himself,  I  sent  him  with  my  servant  and  horses^ 
with  some  heads  of  reasons  if  possible  to  open  their  eyes.  He 
is  very  well  known  among  them,  and  very  acceptable  to  their 
ministers  who  are  the  firebrands,  and  I  hope  may  be  serviceable 
to  cool  the  fury.  .  .  .  He  will  deserve  a  pardon  for  what  has 
passed,  if  he  performs  this  service,  whether  he  has  success  or 
not."  Parliament,  in  view  of  the  armed  gatherings,  now  sus- 
pended the  clause  in  the  Act  of  Security  legalising  such  assemblies 
of  fencible  men.  This  "  Pierce "  is  either  Kersland,  of  whom 
Harley  would  hear   through   Queensberry,  or  he  is — Cunningham 


CUNNINGHAM   AND   HEPBURN   (1706).  129 

of  Eckatt,  the  agent  of  Lockhart  and  Atholl.     We  shall  show  that 
*'  Pierce  "  is  Kersland,  not  Cunningham. 

Before  December  24  I)e  Foe  had  a  long  report  from  Pierce. 
He  had  been  through  the  West  country,  including  Galloway  and 
Dumfriesshire  ;  had  spent  three  days  with  the  preacher,  Mr  Hep- 
burn, and  with  his  disciples,  and  had  opened  his  eyes  in  several 
things.  "  It  is  public  here  that  Pierce  is  in  Galloway,  and  it  is 
the  only  place  from  which  real  danger  is  apprehended."  "  He  has 
done  such  service  as  no  man  in  Scotland  could  have  done,"  "has 
succeeded  beyond  expectation."  By  December  27  Pierce  had  re- 
turned to  Edinburgh,  and  gave  an  account  of  his  mission,  which 
could  in  part  be  checked  by  the  evidence  of  De  Foe's  servant,  who 
rode  with  Pierce.  "'Tis  a  most  unaccountable  thing  how  the 
Jacobite  subtlety "  (of  Cunningham,  obviously)  "  had  imposed 
upon  the  ignorant  people  there,  and  brought  them  to  be  ready  to 
join  with  almost  anybody  to  raise  a  disturbance.  Hepburn,  the 
minister,  though  mad  man  enough,  declares  against  tumult  and 
arms,  and  Pierce  says  there  is  no  fear  there :  the  worst  people  are 
about  Hamilton  and  that  side  of  the  country,  and  principally  be- 
cause they  have  the  worst  engines  about  them,  and  are  daily  de- 
luded by  the  party  of  that  fancy  " — the  Jacobites.  Now  Hamilton 
is  near  Lockhart  of  Carnwath's  country,  where  "the  worst  engines" 
were  worked  by  him,  while  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  was  potent, 
as  long  as  he  was  Presbyterian,  in  the  district.  Hepburn,  on  the 
other  hand,  though  "  deposed  from  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry," 
was  sticking  to  his  parish  "  and  bearing  testimony  against  the 
defections  of  the  Church,"  in  remote  Galloway. ^^  In  17 12,  at 
least,  this  holy  man  was  ready  to  own  Queen  Anne's  authority, 
as  in  the  declaration  of  November  20,   1706.^'* 

Here,  then,  we  find  that  Pierce  has  pacified  Hepburn  and  his 
followers.  Now,  when  Cunningham  of  Eckatt  went  to  the  West 
after  arranging  a  Western  rising  to  join  in  a  Highland  rising,  "the 
first  discovery  he  made  was  that  the  Court,  fearing  a  storm  from 
hence,  had  gained  over  Mr  Hepburn,  a  mountain  Cameronian 
minister,  and  the  darling  of  the  people,  to  their  side,  and  he  served 
them  as  a  spy,  and  though  he  roared  as  much  as  any  against  the 
Union,  did  nevertheless  oppose  all  their  measures  of  appearing 
openly  against  it."^^  Thus  Cunningham  found  that  De  Foe's 
Pierce  had  cut  the  "  Hebronite "  party  away  from  him,  and  he 
betook  himself,  or  so  he  said,  to  another  firebrand,  the  Rev.  Mr 

VOL.    IV.  I 


I30  SUCCESS  OF  KERSLAND  (1706). 

Macmillan,  whose  curious  career  will  be  traced  later.  Cunning- 
ham now  had  much  success  in  securing  recruits,  and  Lockhart 
supposed  that  he  had  detached  the  people  from  Hepburn.  He 
then  went  to  Edinburgh  to  report  progress. 

Now  this  visit  of  a  Jacobite  agent  or  agents  to  the  "  Camer- 
onians"  whom  he  had  cooled  down  is  reported  briefly  by  Kers- 
land.  He  thought  his  people  satisfied  with  burning  the  Articles 
of  Union  (November  20),  and  with  the  pleasant  idea  of  burning 
the  houses  of  a  few  Unionists.  "But  upon  their  former  Agree- 
ments and  Resolutions,  those  that  were  upon  the  Head  of  the  Jacob- 
ites retur7icd,''' — that  is,  teste  Lockhart,  Cunningham  returned, — "and 
endeavoured  to  persuade  us  to  march  to  Edinburgh,  with  full 
assurance  that  the  Highlanders  would  meet  us  there.  .  .  ." 
Kersland,  therefore,  "canted  to  the  Cameronians,"  pointing  out 
that  the  Jacobites  "had  all  along  been  our  avowed  enemies," 
and  had  given  no  proof  of  zeal.  The  "  Cameronians  "  had  burned 
the  Articles  of  Union — the  Jacobites  "had  not  answered  our 
signal."  Kersland  then  returned  to  Edinburgh,  where  De  Foe, 
who  calls  him  "Pierce,"  thought,  truly,  that  he  had  done  very 
good  service.  By  January  6  he  could  report  that  the  Angus 
men,  &c.,  are  dropped  away  as  silently  as  they  came.  Lord  Leven, 
and  the  leading  Unionists,  "are  sensible  that  Pierce  has  done 
service  there,  nor  is  there  a  man  in  town  dare  go  there  but 
him."  Pierce  was  therefore  to  return  to  his  pacificatory  mission. 
(December  27.)     "The  consternation  here  increases." 

That  Pierce  is  Kersland  is  shown  by  this  fact :  when  the  Union 
was  being  welcomed  by  salvos  of  cannon  from  the  Castle  (March 
10),  Pierce  went  to  London  to  seek  his  reward,  and  now,  De  Foe 
says,  others  than  he  are  employing  Pierce.  At  the  same  time 
Kersland  began  to  leave  Queensberry  for  the  Squadrone,  under 
the  Earl  of  Roxburgh,  as  he  tells  us.^  The  Sqiiadrone  are  "  the 
others"  alluded  to  by  De  Foe.  He  remained  soi-disant  guide 
of  the  "Cameronians,"  and  spy  on  the  Jacobites,  for  two  years. 
In  a  letter  of  May  4,  1709,  published  by  Lockhart,  Kersland 
mentions,  among  other  matters,  that  the  Lord -Justice  Clerk 
had  bidden  him  to  countermand  his  orders  to  the  Cameronians 
to  burn  Trarjuair's  house.  "  I  immediately  obeyed."  If,  then, 
historians  have  accepted  Kersland  as  potent  with  the  "Camer- 
onians," they  are  only  in  the  same  error  with  Roxburgh  and  other 
contemporary   statesmen.     Kersland    reminds    Roxburgh   of  "my 


HAMILTON   DESERTS   THE   PARTY  OF  VIOLENCE  (1706).      131 

eminent  services  when  the  last  Scots  Parliament  was  sitting"  (1706- 
1707),  and  on  other  occasions.^^  Later  he  sent  to  Harley  a  letter 
written  to  himself  by  officers  of  the  famous  Cameronian  regiment, 
raised,  as  they  say,  by  Kersland's  brother.  During  the  time  of 
the  threatened  French  invasion,  with  King  James,  of  1708,  they 
say  that  Kersland  promised  that  their  arrears  of  pay  would  be 
made  good.  "  You  can  bear  witness  of  our  readiness  to  have 
opposed  the  French  last  year,  had  they  landed.  .  .  .  We  still 
retain  a  due  value  for  you,  and  an  esteem  for  the  family  whom 
you  are  honoured  to  represent."  This  paper,  with  Kersland's  letter 
and  promise  to  visit  Harley  "on  Wednesday  night,"  is  in  the 
Duke  of  Portland's  manuscripts.^  In  the  face  of  all  these  facts, 
it  seems  vain  to  deny  Kersland's  influence  with  people  called 
"Cameronians,"  even  if  "that  nickname,"  as  Patrick  Walker  in- 
dignantly styles  it,  be  laxly  applied  by  the  writers  who  are  cited. 

We  have  left  the  intended  rising  of  Westland  Whigs  and  High- 
landers at  a  moment  when  Cunningham  of  Eckatt  had  assured 
Lockhart  that  all  was  in  readiness.  Seven  or  eight  thousand  armed 
men  "were  just  upon  the  wing"  for  the  tryst  at  Hamilton,  "when 
the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  without  acquainting  any  of  those  who 
he  knew  were  conscious  of  the  concert,  sent  expresses  privately 
through  the  whole  country "  and  countermanded  the  execution  of 
the  design.  The  design  was  so  ripe  that  "  the  ministers  of  thirteen 
parishes  in  their  several  pulpits  read  the  paper  handed  about  for 
their  assembling,"  writes  De  Foe  to  Harley  on  December  i.  These 
ministers  were  not,  technically  speaking,  "  Cameronians,"  or  rather 
they  were  Cameronians  in  all  except  renouncing  their  comfortable 
places  in  the  Kirk.  It  is  to  the  Duchess,  not  the  Duke,  of  Hamilton 
that  De  Foe  attributes  the  countermanding  of  the  plot :  it  was 
characteristic  of  Hamilton  to  hide  behind  her  Grace. 

Cunningham  now  returned  to  Edinburgh  and  told  Lockhart  and 
his  associates  "by  what  means  he  was  disappointed."  Lockhart 
could  not  explain  the  Duke's  conduct :  some  said  he  had  capitu- 
lated to  Queensberry,  others  that  he  was  afraid  of  losing  his  English 
estates,  others  that  he  dreaded  the  English  troops  on  the  Borders. 
In  his  four  hours  of  secret  colloquy  with  Queensberry,  or  in  his 
many  meetings  with  the  Chancellor,  mentioned  by  De  Foe,  Hamilton 
may  have  heard  words  that  cooled  his  courage. 

Meanwhile  there  is  the  evidence  of  Sir  John  Clerk  of  Penicuik, 
who  knew  Cunningham  of  Eckatt, — evidence  regarding  which  Sir 


132  HAMILTON    BREAKS   ANOTHER    PLAN    (1707). 

John  asserts  that,  after  two  revisions,  he  finds  "  every  particular 
fact  exactly  agreeable  to  truth."  In  the  document  thus  attested, 
Notes  on  Lockhart's  Memoirs,  Sir  John  says  :  "  I  have  conversed 
with  him  [Cunningham  of  Eckatt]  often,  and  he  acknowledged 
that  after  he  had  plotted  with  these  people  [the  Western  fanatics] 
to  make  a  rebellion  he  fell  into  remorse  of  conscience,  .  .  .  and 
from  that  time  entered  into  correspondence  with  the  Duke  of 
Queensberry.  I  know  likewise  that  he  was  employed  by  the  Duke 
to  go  among  these  men  and,  by  pretending  to  be  their  friend,  to 
dissuade  them  from  violent  measures."  ^^  After  the  Union,  Cun- 
ningham received  ;^ioo  and  a  commission  as  captain,  but  that  was 
no  more  than  payment  of  his  arrears.  It  is  conceivable  that 
Cunningham,  at  the  last  moment,  warned  Queensberry,  and  that 
Queensberry  put  pressure  on  Hamilton  to  countermand  the  rising 
in  his  country,  while  Kersland  quieted  the  fury  of  Mr  Hepburn's 
flock  and  adherents.  Thus  a  great  chance  of  breaking  the  Union 
and  of  seizing  the  opportunity  to  serve  the  White  Rose  cause 
was  lost. 

The  next  idea  of  the  Cavaliers  was  to  follow  a  precedent  of  the 
minority  of  James  V.,  and  summon  all  barons,  freeholders,  and 
heritors  to  Edinburgh  and  request  Queensberry  to  lay  aside  the 
Union  and  address  the  queen  in  favour  of  a  new  Parliament. 
Fletcher  and  Atholl  devised  this,  and  Hamilton  recommended 
the  scheme.  Mr  Harry  Maule,  author  of  a  '  History  of  the  Picts,' 
dear  to  Sir  Arthur  Wardour  in  '  The  Antiquary,'  drew  up  the 
Address  to  the  Queen.  When  about  500  gentlemen  had  mustered, 
Hamilton  broke  the  plan,  saying  that  he  would  not  be  concerned 
in  it  unless  the  Hanoverian  succession  was  secured.  The  lairds 
began  to  return  to  the  country,  and  Queensberry,  on  December  27, 
proclaimed  that  no  such  meetings  must  be  held.  De  Foe  (January 
2,  1707)  writes  that  the  gentlemen  would  not  have  been  ill  pleased 
"  by  a  popular  rising,  but  I  do  not  find  they  were  very  forward  to 
venture  their  own  heads  in  the  fray."*°  Hamilton  was  in  occasional 
communication  with  Queensberry  and  Harley :  Harley  knew  what 
his  relations  with  France  and  the  Chevalier  were,  through  the 
Jacobite  spy.  Captain  Ogilvie,  and  Hamilton  may  have  had  a  hint 
of  warning.      He  and  Atholl  had  now  quarrelled  openly. 

Meanwhile  the  Articles  of  Treaty  were  run  through,  with  some 
slight  amendments  as  to  trade  and  taxation.  The  Equivalent  was 
judged  to  be  well  calculated  and  was  accepted ;  the  Darien  Company 


HAMILTON    A   THIRD   TIME   DESERTS   (1707).  1 33 

sent  in  an  address,  but  was  left  to  the  proposed  compensation.  The 
twenty-second  Article,  as  to  the  proportion  of  Scots  representatives 
in  the  British  Parliament,  was  seized  on  by  Hamilton  as  a  chance 
of  recovering  his  character  among  patriots  and  Cavaliers.  They 
must  now,  at  the  eleventh  hour,  redeem  the  nation  from  ruin.  They 
should  propose  the  Hanoverian  succession  in  place  of  union ; 
that  would  not  be  accepted,  the  proposers  would  leave  the  House 
for  ever,  and,  having  procured  as  many  signatures  as  possible  to 
Harry  Maule's  address,  would  send  that  to  the  queen.  The  protest 
and  withdrawal  would  alarm  the  English.  The  protest  was  drafted, 
probably  by  the  shifty  Lord  Advocate  Stewart,  who  through  so 
many  years  had  played  so  many  parts.  It  was  alleged  that  the 
privilege  of  Scots  Peers  to  sit  in  Parliament  was  fundamental  and 
immutable,  nor  could  Parliament  diminish  the  representation  of  the 
burghs.  It  was  to  be  protested  that  the  Scots  were  being  degraded 
below  the  English  Peers  (which  was  undeniably  true) ;  that  the 
burghs  had  petitioned  against  the  diminution  of  their  own  rep- 
resentation ;  that  the  two  national  Churches  were  incompatible ; 
that  the  trades  of  the  countries  were  worked  under  conditions  so 
different  that  equality  of  customs  and  taxes  would  be  ruinous  to 
Scotland.  Hamilton  said  that  if  England  still  persisted  in  the 
Union  they  must  have  recourse  to  arms,  and  "  call  over  the  king," 
James  VIII.  The  approval  of  the  Hanoverian  succession,  he  said, 
would  not  commit  them, — "  it  was  not  the  first  time  they  had  made 
greater  stretches."  His  own  "  stretches  "  were  immense  !  Atholl 
would  not  agree  to  the  "stretch,"  but  promised  to  leave  the  House 
with  the  other  protesters. 

The  hour  came^  but  not  the  man !  Hamilton,  a  martyr  to 
toothache,  declined  to  appear.  His  friends  reminded  him  that 
by  similar  waverings  his  grandfather,  under  Charles  I.,  had  lost 
his  reputation  as  well  as  his  head.  He  was  thus  induced  to 
attend  the  House,  despite  his  toothache,  but  he  would  not  present 
the  resolution  :  business  went  on,  but  nobody,  failing  Hamilton, 
would  bell  the  cat,  Lockhart  learned  that  Hamilton  had  received 
a  private  threat :  England  would  hold  him  responsible.  Thence- 
forth the  Cavaliers,  thrice  betrayed  by  Hamilton,  "  did  every  one 
that  which  was  good  in  his  own  eyes " ;  many  ceased  to  attend 
the  House ;  Lockhart,  Errol,  Atholl,  Marischal,  and  others,  entered 
protests  which  Marchmont  denounced  as  seditious.'*^  There  was 
a  brawl  in  the  House,  says  De  Foe,  Atholl  and  Argyll  giving  each 


134  "THE   END   OF   AN   AULD   SANG"  (1707). 

Other  the  He.  On  the  14th  the  two  last  Articles  were  voted; 
by  an  amendment  Scotland  kept  her  records  and  regalia,  which 
lay  for  112  years  in  a  box  in  a  sealed  room  in  the  Castle.  The 
House  voted  its  own  power  to  elect  the  representatives  to  the 
British  Parliament  on  this  occasion.  On  January  16  the  Treaty 
was  touched  with  the  sceptre,  and  "  there  was  the  end  of  an 
auld  sang,"  said  Seafield.  "The  implacable  parsons  are  insuffer- 
ably insolent,"  writes  De  Foe  ;  " .  .  .  they  are  proud,  passionate, 
ignorant,  and  jealous,"  and  need  very  tender  handling, ^^  In  the 
English  Houses  the  Treaty  was  passed  rapidly,  and  the  queen 
assented  on  March  4,  1707.  On  May  i  there  was  held  a  solemn 
service  in  St  Paul's.  It  was  a  sad  old  song  that  ended,  and  for 
many  a  day  the  new  song  was  as  mournful. 

That  Scotland  had  been  sold,  for  money  down,  was  a  natural 
thing  for  angry  people  to  say.  In  the  appendix  to  his  Memoirs 
Lockhart  published  the  results  of  a  financial  examination  made 
in  England  in  171 1.  It  was  proved  that  in  August  1706,  after 
the  negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  Union,  the  queen  lent  ;!^20,ooo  to 
the  Scottish  Government  for  paying  arrears  and  expenses  :  we  know 
that  Marchmont  complained  that  his  pension  was  in  arrears,  as 
pensions  often  were  in  Scotland.  The  Ministers  were  to  pay  such 
arrears,  and  they  were  to  pass  an  Act  of  Treasury  acknowledging 
the  debt.  But  they,  namely  Queensberry,  Seafield,  Mar,  Loudoun, 
and  Glasgow,  in  two  letters,  pointed  out  that  "  the  affair  would 
probably  make  some  noise  if  the  letter  were  read  in  the  Treasury 
before  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  and  before  the  Treaty  is  well  re- 
ceived." It  was  not  well  to  let  it  be  known  that  the  queen  was  lend- 
ing money  to  the  Treasury.  The  Ministers,  the  loan  being  secret, 
were  able  to  pay  the  arrears  of  their  friends,  while  Queensberry's 
official  expenses  swallowed  much  of  the  money.  Marchmont  re- 
ceived ;^ii4o,  15s.  yd.,  which,  no  doubt,  was  due  to  him.  Why 
the  Duke  of  Atholl  got  ;^iooo  is  uncertain:  he  was  a  strenuous 
opponent  of  the  Union,  and,  if  he  "took  the  devil's  wages,"  he 
did  not  "  do  the  devil's  work."  Montrose  went  cheap,  if  he  sold 
himself  for  JQ200,  and  Banff"  really  cannot  have  vended  his  vote 
for  ^11,  2s.  Lockhart  suggests  that  the  Ministers  expected 
to  win  Atholl,  but  were  disappointed.  Many  of  the  recipients 
of  money,  he  says,  had  no  traceable  claims ;  others,  including 
Atholl,  gave  no  receipts,  and  their  lawful  claims  were  paid  afresh 
out  of  the  Equivalent.     What  money  Queensberry  repaid  was  re- 


CHARGES  OF  BRIBERY  ( i  7  i  i ).  1 35 

stored  to  the  Treasury  in  a  clandestine  way,  and  appeared  to 
have  been  given  back  again  as  a  reward.  The  paltry  affair  was 
never  clearly  "redd  up,"  as  the  Scots  say,  and  it  is  probable 
enough  that  a  few  thousand  pounds  did  disappear  from  the  ac- 
counts, but  these  pounds  did  not  buy  the  Union :  as  De  Foe 
says,   "it  was  merely  formed  by  the  nature  of  things,"''^ 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   V. 

1  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  p.  99.      London,  1786. 

^  Memoirs  of  Clerk  of  Penicuik,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.  58. 

■*  Marchinont  Papers,  iii.  282-294. 

•*  Marchmont  Papers,  iii.  442,  443. 

°  M'Cormick,  pp.  743-745. 

"  M'Cormick,  p.  749. 

^  M'Cormick,  p.  753. 

*  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  p.   119. 

^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  154. 
^^  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  p.  123. 

"  Memoirs  of  Clerk  of  Penicuik,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.  61. 
'■-  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  p.  125. 
^•'  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  p.  140. 
^^  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  pp,  155-157. 
^^  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  pp.  158,  168. 

^^  Cf.  Hill  Burton,  viii.  132,  for  some  remarks  on  a  patriotic  confusion  of  mind 
between  the  dexter  of  the  shield  and  of  the  spectator. 

^^  Correspondence  of  Colonel  Hooke,  Roxburghe  Club,  i.  279-291. 
^^  Correspondence  of  Colonel  Hooke,  Roxburghe  Club,  ii.  293. 
"  Correspondence  of  Colonel  Hooke,  Roxburghe  Club,  i.  372-41S. 
'•^^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  147-149. 

^^  Edinburgh  Review.     "Original  Letters  of  the  Duke  of  Argvll,"  clxxvi.  517, 
518. 

'■^-  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  pp.  312-328. 
^  De  Foe,  History  of  the  Union,  pp.  618,  619. 
^*  Lockhart  Papers,  pp.  173-175. 

-'  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  xv.,  Appendix  iv.  354,  355. 
^*  Hill  Burton,  viii.  160-162.     Mackinnon,  Union  of  Scotland  and  England,  p. 
315  (1896).     Mathieson,  Scotland  and  the  Union,  pp.  134,  149  (1905).     Patrick 
\Valker,  Vindication  of  Cameron's  Name,  1727.     Cf.  Six  Saints  of  the  Covenant, 
edited  by  D.  Hay  Fleming,  i.  267,  268;  ii.  175. 

-"  D.  Hay  Fleming,  United  Presbyterian  Magazine,  May  1S98,  pp.  209,  2IO. 
■■^  Plain  Reasons  for  Presbyterians  Dissenting  from  the  Revolution  Church  in 
Scotland,   1731,  s.i.,    pp.    274-277.       An    Informatory  Vindication   of  a    Poor, 
Wastal,  Misrepresented  Remnant,  <S;c,  1707,  sJ.,  p.  270. 
^^  Act.  Pari.  Scot.  xi.  285,  2S6.     Appendix,  pp.  77,  97. 


136  NOTES. 

2°  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  196-199. 

^^  See  the  Dumfries  Declaration  in  '  Lockhart  Papers,'  i.  194-196. 

2-  Hay  Fleming,  U.P.  Magazine,  May  1898,  p.  209. 

'^  Wodrow  Correspondence,  i.  66,  note  2. 

^*  Wodrow  Correspondence,  i.  289. 

^^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  199. 

^®  Kersland,  i.  29,  44 ;  Portland  MSS.,  iv.  348-392. 

3T  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  302-307. 

2*  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  i.,  xv.,  iv.,  528,  529.  A  form  of  the  letter,  .signed  by  six 
names,  and  dated  May  15,  is  given  by  Kersland,  Memoirs,  i.  68,  69. 

'^  Somerville,  Queen  Anne  (1798),  p.  219,  note  31. 

■*"  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  203,  205;  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  p.  376. 

*^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  206-221. 

■*2  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  p.  385. 

^■^  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  262-279.  See  Mackinnon,  The  Union  of  Scotland  and 
England,  pp.  342-355,  for  a  full  criticism  of  Lockhart's  accusations. 


^17 


CHAPTER    VI. 

JACOBITE     MOVEMENTS. 
1707-1708. 

The  history  of  Scotland  as  a  separate  nation  is  closed  ;  we  entei 
on  the  chapter,  so  dear  to  romance,  of  the  endeavours  of  some 
Scots  to  restore  the  exiled  representative  of  their  royal  dynasty. 
Hearts,  in  fact,  were  not  absolutely  broken  by  the  Union.  Lock- 
hart,  of  all  men  the  most  ardently  devoted  to  the  ancient  kingdom, 
writing  on  April  30,  1707,  "the  last  day  that  Scotland  's  Scotland," 
may  "lament  and  weep,"  he  says,  but  he  admits,  "truly  I've 
had  admirable  sport."  He  had  been  coursing  at  this  odd  season 
of  the  year :  hares  were  plentiful,  and  "  Bagpipe  and  Thistle  are 
to  run  at  Peebles  on  May  8  ;  .  .  .  the  last  runs  like  an  arrow  out  of 
a  bow  from  all  the  rest."  He  finds  his  neighbours  as  "  honest " — 
that  is,  as  Jacobite — as  if  the  whole  shire  of  Angus  were  transplanted 
into  Whiggish  Lanarkshire.  "What  just  sentiments  they  have  of 
affairs,  and  how  ready  to  embark  !  "  ^  They  were  soon  to  have  a 
chance  of  "  embarking,"  which  they  did  not  accept  with  avidity. 
On  March  9,  1707,  "the  two  kings,"  Louis  XIV.  and  James 
VIII.  and  III.,  gave  Colonel  Hooke  letters  for  twelve  leading 
Scots :  recommending  Hooke  to  Atholl,  Marischal,  Kincardine, 
Mar,  Grenard,  Buchan,  Annandale,  Bute,  Aberdeen,  Glencairn, 
Galloway,  the  Dukes  of  Hamilton  and  Gordon  ;  Drummond,  Errol, 
and  Panmure.  These  were,  indeed,  broken  reeds ;  the  barons 
addressed  were  of  a  sentimental  but  not  of  a  fighting  loyalty — were 
not  men  like  the  venerable  Lochiel,  Clanranald,  and  Glengarry, 
and  the  Macleans.  The  exiled  Simon  Eraser  (Lovat),  from  the 
Chateau  d'Angouleme,  warned  Hooke  not  to  believe  what  might 
be  said  about  himself  by  the  friends  of  Atholl  and  Hamilton.      He 


138  COLONEL   HOOKE'S   MISSION  (1707). 

boasted  of  how  he  had  bullied  Atholl  (as  in  his  Memoirs),  while 
AthoU  was  still  TuUibardine.  Hamilton  and  Atholl  "are  well 
fitted  to  make  a  noise  in  Parliament,  but  will  never  draw  sword 
for  the  king,"  —  a  warning  which  Hooke  found  to  be  perfectly 
veracious.  Nobody  is  true,  said  Simon,  but  the  North  and  the 
clans,  whom  he  could  direct  if  he  were  released  from  prison 
(March   5,    1707). 

Hooke  might  have  listened  to  Lovat  and  stayed  in  France,  for 
all  the  good  that  he  did  in  Scotland.  James  wrote  to  Hamilton, 
expressing  his  own  intention  to  land  in  Scotland.  The  king  did 
not  lack  courage, — at  Malplaquet  he  charged  repeatedly  at  the  head 
of  the  Maison  du  Roy ;  but  he  did  lack  gaiety,  and  was  no  stead- 
fast leader  of  a  forlorn  hope.  Handsome  in  youth,  he  did  not 
win  hearts,  for  he  was  very  shy ;  and,  far  from  being  the  witty 
.tipsy  profligate  described  in  'Esmond,'  Thackeray's  famous  novel, 
he  was  of  a  melancholy  temperament,  and  was  accused  by  his 
enemies  of  a  culpable  coldness  towards  the  fair  sex.  These  cruel 
charges  were  made  in  1715  ;  in  1707,  when  only  eighteen,  James, 
had  he  been  permitted  to  land,  might  perhaps  have  gained  affec- 
tion as  readily  as  did  his  more  audacious  son. 

Hooke's  orders  were  to  say  that  the  unfortunate  campaign  of 
Ramilies  had  made  it  impossible  for  Louis  to  aid  his  ancient  allies. 
But  stirred  by  the  dangers  expressed  by  "  the  false  name  of  union," 
he  will  now  send  succours,  though  he  candidly  adds  that  they 
may  not  be  "bien  considerables."  Officers  and  arms  are  promised 
at  once  :  they  were  not  sent.  Hooke  is  to  have  two  frigates  at 
Dunkirk  :  they  were  privateering  on  the  private  account  of  Pont- 
chartrain  and  not  accessible  ;  but  Hooke  found  a  small  vessel,  The 
Heroine^  of  sixteen  guns.  His  orders  were  to  visit  Lady  Errol, 
and  be  guided  by  her  advice.  Female  counsellors  of  the  Jacob- 
ites were  always  many  and  eager,  but  of  less  weight  than  the 
women  of  the  Kirk  party,  to  whom  De  Foe  attributed  the  Presby- 
terian recalcitrance.  If  the  Union  has  been  passed,  Hooke  was 
told,  the  country  will  be  the  more  excited,  and  this  was  true.  The 
opponents  of  the  Union,  all  the  prejudiced  and  ignorant  folk  in 
Scotland,  with  all  the  Jacobites,  all  the  more  extreme  Presby- 
terians, and  the  Cameronians,  expected  to  be  deceived  and  robbed 
by  England  as  soon  as  the  Union  passed.  They  easily  persuaded 
themselves  that  their  fears  had  become  realities. 

The  Scottish   commercial  class  had  laid  a  plan,  mentioned  by 


QUARRELS   AS   TO   TRADE   (1707).  1 39 

De  Foe  as  early  as  February,  for  at  least  making  an  honest  penny 
out  of  the  dastardly  betrayal  of  their  country.  The  duty  on 
imported  goods  was  lower  in  Scotland  than  in  England.  If, 
therefore,  the  Scots  traders  brought  in  foreign  wares  after  the 
Treaty  of  Union  had  passed  the  Scots  Parliament,  and  before  its 
final  ratification,  they  could  clear  a  desirable  difference  by  importing 
them  into  England  after  the  ratification.  English  traders,  ob- 
serving the  circumstance,  bought  goods  abroad,  had  them  shipped 
to  Scotland,  and  meant  to  transport  them  into  England  at  the 
right  moment.  Other  devices  of  a  similar  sort  occurred  to  Eng- 
lish capital  and  enterprise,  and  Scotland  was  rich  in  foreign 
luxuries  awaiting  translation  to  consumers  south  of  the  Border. 
In  April  the  English  House  of  Commons  passed  a  Bill  to  prevent 
these  evasions  of  English  duties — that  is,  they  legislated  against 
bringing  foreign  goods  into  Scotland  for  the  purpose  of  bilking 
the  English  Custom  House.  But  Scotland  was  still  for  a  few 
weeks  a  separate  kingdom,  and  it  was  plain  that  no  English 
Parliament  could  legislate  for  it.  The  English  House  of  Lords 
was  obliged  to  recognise  the  difficulty :  there  were  disputes  be- 
tween the  two  Houses,  the  Lords  taking  the  side  of  strict  legality. 
But  the  English  Board  of  Customs  refused  to  allow  a  number 
of  vessels  bringing  foreign  goods  from  Scotland  to  be  unloaded, 
and  the  commercial  Scottish  were  furious.  The  question  was 
tossed  about  between  the  Courts  of  Law  and  the  Parliament, 
and  the  Scottish  grudge  against  the  Union  was  fanned  into  flame. 
The  arrival  of  part  of  the  Equivalent  in  gold  and  the  rest  in 
Exchequer  Bills  provoked  the  mob.  We  do  not  know  that 
they  assailed  the  soldiers  who  guarded  the  waggons  containing 
the  arrears  of  pay  that  were  the  price  of  Charles  L,  but  De  Foe 
saw  the  crowd  stone  the  Scottish  soldiers  who  protected  the  Equiv- 
alent as  far  as  Edinburgh  Castle.  Moreover,  the  greater  part  was 
sent  in  Exchequer  Bills,  which  the  multitude  did  not  understand. 
They  thought  that  they  were  "bit,"  and  that  their  honour,  national 
independence,  covenanted  religion,  and  all  that  they  held  dearest, 
were  being  paid  for  with  notes  on  the  Bank  of  Fancy.  A  glimpse 
of  Edinburgh  at  the  moment  of  the  arrival  of  the  Equivalent  is 
given  by  Mr  Houblon  of  the  Bank  of  England,  in  contemporary 
letters  to  his  brother  in  London.  They  were  of  a  noble  Huguenot 
family,  which  came  to  England  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  :  one  of 
the  house  was  the  first  Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England.      Mr 


I40  THE   equivalent's  WELCOME  (1707). 

Houblon  accompanied  the  Equivalent  on  its  northward  way,  and 
was  received  with  military  honours  at  Berwick,  "a  miserable  place," — 
so  he  describes  the  town  which,  under  Edward  I.,  was  reckoned  the 
peer  of  ancient  Alexandria.  In  Edinburgh  the  Commissioners  and 
Chancellor  were  most  hospitable.  "  The  wine  is  incomparable, 
and  yet  I  drink  water  with  it  to  save  myself  all  I  can."  "  I  am 
lodged  four  stories,  and  some  of  us  eight  stories  high  :  here  are 
houses  sixteen  stories.  The  women  all  wear  Scotch  plaids  on 
their  heads  as  a  veil,  and  look  like  so  many  Harlequins,  and  have 
an  air,  too,  of  Nuns  :  some  wear  them  with  a  de'gage  air  that  is 
agreeable." 

Mr  Houblon  tranquilly  remarked  on  the  discontents.  "The 
Scots  are  uneasy  at  the  seizing  of  their  wines  "  (in  the  Thames) 
"  after  a  Transire  was  sent  them  to  London  ;  also  at  the  pressing 
their  seamen  out  of  their  ships  "  to  serve  in  the  navy.  "  These  are 
wrong  steps,  and  will  render  matters  the  more  difficult  to  us.  .  .  . 
We  have  so  managed  matters  that  all  reasonable  people  will  accept 
the  Exchequer  Bills  in  payment,  but  we  have  to  do  with  a  great 
number  who  are  not  so,  and  who  are  enemies  to  the  Government, 
and  therefore  it  will  be  requisite  that  another  convoy  of  money 
come  down  from  London.  The  ^100,000  arrived  here  this  noon 
[August  5],  and  is  safe  lodged  in  the  Castle,"  where  there  was  a 
Jacobite  plan  of  seizing  the  gold.  "  It  gave  a  very  great  alarm  to 
the  people  of  this  place,  and  some  are  not  yet  satisfied  that  there 
was  money  in  the  carriages,  but  ammunition  or  stones,  and  they're 
very  apprehensive  they  are  to  carry  back  the  Crown."  When  Sir 
Walter  Scott,  with  others,  opened  in  181 8  the  locked  box  in  the 
closed  room  where  the  Regalia  lay,  these  apprehensions  were  lulled 
at  last !  *  The  mob  stoned  the  bank  officers  and  coachmen,  and 
"  here  are  frequently  riots  about  the  Excise :  some  brewers  have 
left  off  brewing,  and  the  mob  would  oblige  the  rest  to  put  out 
their  fires,  which  is  no  ill-laid  design  to  raise  a  commotion.  ,  .  . 
The  novelty  of  paying  the  Excise,  and  the  harshness  of  some  parts 
of  it  as  to  the  poorer  sort,  with  the  seizing  of  their  wines,  and  press- 
ing their  seamen,  all  at  one  juncture,  contributes  very  much  to  sour 
these  people.  .  .  .  We  were  at  Kirk  on  Sunday,  and  saw  two 
stand  upon  the  stool  of  Repentance."  On  August  26  a  great 
hunting  is  reported  as  imminent  in  the  Highlands, — "about  3000 
'I'orics  and  Papists "  were  the  sportsmen. 

*  See  Lockliarl's  '  Life  of  Sir  Walter  Scott,'  v.  273-284. 


FRICTION   (1707).  141 

As  the  revenue  was  henceforth  to  be  collected  on  the  English 
system,  in  place  of  the  old  farmers  of  the  taxes,  English  officials 
were  sent  to  show  the  way,  and  their  unpopularity  needs  no 
explanation.  Smugglers  began  a  career  of  profit  and  popularity 
which  was  long  enduring.  The  abolition  of  the  Scottish  Privy 
Council  was  a  less  sensible  grievance  :  it  could  not  be  represented 
as  a  breach  of  the  Union,  and  it  served  the  ends  of  the  Sguadrone 
as  much  as  it  tended  to  defeat  those  of  the  Courtiers  under  the 
leadership  of  Queensberry. 

All  this  friction  is  inevitable  in  political,  if  not  in  personal, 
honeymoons,  but,  combined  with  the  standing  religious  objection 
to  the  Union,  it  produced  an  amount  of  heat  which  the  Jacobites 
hoped  would  mature  their  scheme  for  a  restoration.  In  May  and 
June  Scottish  anger  was  at  the  boiling-point.  In  short,  all  was 
going  to  the  heart's  desire,  and  Jacobites  alleged  that  the  Prince  of 
Wales  (King  James)  "  will  be  here  in  less  than  six  months."  They 
did  not  miscalculate  :  James  was  off  the  coast  within  the  six  months, 
but  the  French  admiral  would  not  allow  him  to  land.^  Fiery 
preachers  made  more  din  than  the  moderatism  of  the  General 
Assembly  could  stifle.^  De  Foe  said,  however,  "It  is  the  easiest 
thing  in  the  world  to  hire  people  here  to  betray  their  friends.  .  .  . 
I  have  spies  in  the  Assembly.  .  .  .  The  measures  I  took  about  the 
Assembly  put  me  to  no  small  expense."  De  Foe  cannot  possibly 
have  bribed  the  Assembly,  he  had  not  funds,  and  the  preachers 
never  were  corrupt.  But  the  temper  of  the  country,  as  we  have 
heard  Lockhart  say,  seemed  all  that  the  Jacobites  could  wish. 
Louis  was  under  the  false  impression  that  large  supplies  of  arms 
had,  according  to  his  commands,  been  sent  to  Hooke  for  Scot- 
land. They  would  have  produced  a  better  effect  than  promises — 
for  example,  the  promise  to  give  Hamilton,  in  France,  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  Duchy  of  Chatelherault,  conferred  in  1554  on  that 
ancestor  of  his,  in  the  female  line,  who  played  the  usual  family  part 
of  a  waverer  during  the  Reformation.  The  claim  of  the  present 
Hamilton  to  Chatelherault  was  "very  doubtful,"  said  the  French 
king.  Hooke  had  told  Louis,  in  1705,  that  he  suspected  Hamil- 
ton of  desiring  the  Scottish  Crown  for  himself.  Failing  a  restora- 
tion of  James,  Louis  preferred  a  Hamilton  dynasty  in  Scotland  to 
the  Union.  But  certainly  the  patriotic  Cavaliers  were  not  likely 
to  go  to  war  to  make  a  Douglas  King  of  Scotland. 

Hooke  embarked  from  Dunkirk  on  April   17.     On  April  9  the 


142  KERSLAND   AND   THE   JACOBITES   (1707). 

Duchess  of  Gordon  wrote  to  Lady  Errol,  lamenting  the  delay  of 
"the  man  who  was  to  buy  your  meal,"  namely,  Colonel  Hooke.  A 
new  "meal  merchant"  had  applied  to  her,  "an  honest  Cameronian, 
with  his  Whig  partners."  It  was  highly  important  for  the  Jacobites 
to  gain  the  hardy  Cameronian  yeomen,  armed,  well  horsed,  and 
probably  in  some  cases  drilled.  But  the  rival  meal-merchant  was 
only  Ker  of  Kersland,  the  pseudo-Cameronian,  pseudo-Jacobite  spy 
of  Queensberry.  De  Foe's  agent  among  the  Cameronians,  "  Pierce," 
left  Edinburgh  for  England  on  March  10,  1707,  being  employed  by 
other  hands,  namely  the  Squadrone.  But  Kersland  says  that  he 
was  in  Edinburgh  at  the  end  of  March,  when  some  Jacobites,  in 
Lady  Murray's  gardens,  inducted  him  into  Hooke's  scheme  and 
asked  him  to  bring  in  the  Cameronians.  Kersland  at  once  revealed 
to  Queensberry,  and  next  to  Roxburgh,  all  that  he  had  learned, 
and  was  ordered  to  pretend  to  be  hearty  for  the  plot.  Kersland 
■objected  to  so  much  "  dirty  work,"  but  next  day  made  conditions 
with  the  Jacobites,  including  the  maintenance  of  the  Protestant 
religion,  to  which  he  was  ardently  devoted.  Receiving  comfortable 
promises,  but  no  precise  intelligence,  he  arranged  a  cypher  corres- 
pondence with  "  the  Earl  of  R "  (Roxburgh).     He  really  was 

preparing  some  people  whom  he  calls  "  Cameronians  "  to  act  for  the 
•Government,  with  promise  of  pay  of  arrears  to  the  officers  in  the 
famous  regiment  that  drove  the  clans  out  of  Dunkeld,  as  a  letter 
of  theirs  proves.*  Ker,  at  the  end  of  April,  retired  to  Kersland  "  to 
breathe  some  honest  air  in  the  country."  He  needed  that  refresh- 
ment, for,  among  his  other  rogueries,  he  had  deserted  Queensberry 
for  the  Squadrone  Volante,  who  probably  were,  as  we  saw,  the  new 
employers  of  "Pierce,"  darkly  hinted  at  by  De  Foe  on  March  10. 
In  May  the  Jacobites  summoned  Ker  to  Edinburgh,  he  says, 
satisfied  him  as  to  religion,  and  let  him  into  all  their  secrets. 
His  dates  are  vague,  and,  judging  from  the  Duchess  of  Gordon's 
letter  to  Lady  Errol,  of  April  9,  she  had  "  kept  of  a  good  merchant 
all  this  time,"  namely,  "the  honest  Cameronian  mealmonger,"  Ker. 
Apparently  he  had,  before  April  9,  played  the  ageftt  provocateur 
among  the  Jacobites ;  if  so,  he  was  even  a  greater  scoundrel  than 
he  confesses  himself  to  be.  It  is  his  plan  to  represent  them  as 
approaching  him,  while,  to  all  appearance,  he  approached  them. 
Ker  arranged  that  James  should  promise  abolition  of  the  Union, 
and  declare  himself  a  young  prince  unpersuaded,  ready  to  lend 
.a  candid  ear  to  the  truth  as  it  is  preached  "  by  Protestant  Divines." 


THE  JACOBITES   BACKWARD   (1707).  1 43 

In  June,  Ker  was  able  to  send  Hooke's  cypher  to  Queensberry,  and 
he  received,  from  Baillie  of  Jerviswood,  under  the  Privy  Seal, 
the  queen's  permission  to  disport  himself  as  a  Jacobite  among 
Jacobites.^ 

We  now  return  to  Hooke,  who,  by  the  middle  of  April,  was  in 
Scotland ;  but  the  noble  Jacobites,  he  found,  were  singularly  "  in- 
disposed," especially  Hamilton  and  Atholl,  and  were  quite  unfit  for 
business.  The  Duke  of  Gordon,  too,  was  "  indisposed "  when 
Hooke  wished  for  an  interview  with  him.  He  had  to  lurk  in 
a  wood  till  he  was  conveyed  to  the  place  where  he  was  to  be 
shut  up  for  an  interview  with  Lord  Drummond.  Hamilton  was 
struggling  against  his  aguish  fit  with  "  bark  or  Jesuit's  powder," 
but  not  all  the  quinine  of  South  America  could  have  a  truly  tonic 
effect  on  Hamilton.  The  intriguers  believed  that  Rorie  Mackenzie 
(as  they  styled  the  Cameronians)  "was  for  him  "  (for  King  James) : 
probably  Ker  had  beguiled  them  into  this  delusion,  unless,  indeed, 
he  had  beguiled  the  Cameronians  into  "  a  doubtsome  trust "  of  that 
prince.  At  this  very  time  Lockhart's  head  was  full  of  Bagpipe  and 
Thistle,  his  dogs !  Lockhart  represents  Ker  as  very  successful  in 
extracting  confidences  from  the  Duchess  of  Gordon  and  Catholic 
priests.^  His  own  opinion  was  that  Hooke  negotiated  in  a  corner, 
Angus  and  Perthshire,  so  openly  that  all  the  world  knew  it,  and  yet 
without  consulting  "others" — himself,  probably,  and  the  Lowland 
Cavaliers.  Yet  his  friend,  the  laird  of  Auchterhouse,  represented 
Lockhart  to  Hooke  as  fully  engaged.  Hooke  had  served  the 
ambition  of  Atholl  to  appear  as  the  leading  friend  of  the  king, 
which  implied  throwing  the  indisposed  Hamilton  into  the  opposite 
party,  or,  at  least,  vexed  that  party,  and  made  them  choose  another 
envoy  to  James  than  Hooke.  They  urged  that  if  James  crossed 
the  water  he  should  bring  at  least  10,000  or  15,000  regular 
troops.  None  the  less,  says  Lockhart,  they  would  have  joined 
the  king  had  he  landed  :  one  may  be  quite  certain,  however, 
that  neither  Hamilton  nor  any  of  his  adherents  would  have 
been  "  in  their  bandoliers." 

These  jealousies,  suspicions,  delays,  and  ill-concealed  intrigues 
were  the  mark  of  every  Jacobite  attempt  from  1707  to  1759. 
Spies  were  never  lacking,  and  Ogilvie,  Dundee's  old  officer,  was 
sent  to  Scotland  in  summer  to  pick  up  what  crumbs  of  information 
might  have  escaped  Ker  of  Kersland.  The  imbecility  of  Jacobite 
Lowland  intriguers,  torn  by  common  and  thoroughly  well-deserved 


144  HOOKE   AND   THE   JACOBITES   (1707). 

distrust  of  each  other,  shows  the  want  of  sense  among  the  leaders 
of  the  opposition  to  the  Union.  That  Union  was,  when  all  is  said, 
a  surrender,  but  it  was  a  sagacious  surrender,  while  the  dreams  of 
the  Cavaliers  were  feverish  and  futile. 

Nothing  could  be  more  divided  than  their  party.  Hooke,  repre- 
senting the  Court  of  Versailles,  desired  to  keep  all  his  secrets  from 
the  Court  of  Saint  Germain.  Now,  just  as  the  Lowland  Cavaliers 
of  the  North  regarded  Atholl  as  their  leader,  and  warned  Hooke 
against  the  thrice  perfidious  Duke  of  Hamilton,  so  the  Lowland 
Cavaliers  of  the  South,  little  as  they  trusted  Hamilton,  followed 
him  rather  than  the  hot-headed  counsels  of  the  Catholics  about  the 
Duchess  of  Gordon  and  Drummond.  At  Saint  Germain,  the  party 
of  Middleton  trusted  Hamilton,  the  party  of  Perth  preferred  Atholl, 
and  the  Duchess  of  Gordon  put  Hooke  and  Ker  of  Kersland  in  a 
cypher  correspondence ;  while  the  Presbyterian  leader — as  such  he 
gave  himself  out — betrayed  the  Catholic  lady  and  all  the  secrets  he 
could  learn  from  her  to  the  Government.  Hooke's  vast  Memoir  and 
copious  correspondence  proved  that  he  wished  to  have  two  strings 
to  his  bow,  the  Atholl  string  and  the  Hamilton  string, — he  himself 
preferring  Hamilton.  For  Hamilton  was,  in  fact,  Hvo  strings  :  he 
might  try  to  restore  the  king,  or  might  himself  secure  the  crown  of 
a  Scotland  disunited  to  England, — a  plan  which  would  equally  suit 
the  policy  of  France,  and  therefore  suited  Hooke.  His  orders  were 
to  obtain  correct  information  as  to  topography,  supplies,  fortresses, 
arms,  and  leaders,  and  to  collect  promises-of  adhesion.  To  make 
promises  as  to  what  forces  Louis  would  send  was  not  part  of  his 
duty.  The  French  king,  we  know,  had  offered  "  nothing  consider- 
able"; but  Hamilton  at  one  time  asked  for  15,000  men,  and 
said  that  unless  James  aimed  at  winning  both  Scotland  and 
England  it  was  not  worth  while  to  enter  on  the  game.  Hooke, 
travelling  the  country  disguised  as  an  English  cattle -drover,  was 
driven  back  on  hopes  from  Atholl  \  but  Atholl,  like  Hamilton,  was 
malingering. 

The  best  and  most  loyal  subjects,  it  seemed,  were  the  Camer- 
onians,  who  were  armed  and  ready  ;  and  Hooke  learned,  through  the 
mendacious  Ker,  that  they  only  asked  for  religious  toleration ! 
Had  Hooke  been  a  Scot,  this  audacious  fib  would  have  proved  that 
Ker  was  not  only  deceiving  him  but  laughing  at  him.  The  Earl 
Marischal  fairly  shirked  so  conspicuously  that  Hooke  plainly  gave 
him  a  candid  opinion  of  his  conduct.     The  least  impracticable  plaa 


FALSEHOODS   OF   KERSLAND   (1707).  145 

was  General  Buchan's  scheme  for  seizing  Inverlochy.  Had  that 
been  done,  and  had  James  landed  in  Moidart,  the  clans  would 
have  joined  him  and  swept  the  waverers  forward  with  their  ava- 
lanche. But  the  Presbyterians  {teste  Ker)  wished  for  a  landing  at 
Kirkcudbright,  the  Lowlanders  at  Montrose  or  in  the  Firth  of 
Forth.  Either  Ker  had  himself  a  plan  (false,  of  course)  for  a 
sudden  seizure  of  Edinburgh  Castle  by  a  pleasure-party, — gentle- 
men, backed  by  a  hundred  stout  fellows  hidden  in  a  cellar, — or 
such  a  plan  (genuine)  was  confided  to  him.  Ogilvie  the  spy  gives 
the  former  version  ;  Ker  says  that  he  dissuaded  the  attempt  as 
premature,  rushed  to  town,  and  confided  it  to  Government.  He 
was  seen  leaving  a  house  in  St  James's  Square  :  a  letter  of  warning 
was  sent  to  Edinburgh,  but  Ker  rode  down  before  the  letter  and 
claimed  an  alibi. '^  Ogilvie  (October  18)  writes  that  Ker  is  found 
out  and  shunned ;  and  in  the  letters  of  the  Duchess  of  Gordon  we 
see  that,  in  about  ten  weeks,  her  suspicions  grew  to  a  certainty  that 
the  "  mealmonger  "  was  not  "  honest."  ^ 

Ker,  in  fact,  was  in  a  quandary.  He  was  engaged  to  the  Jacob- 
ites to  bring  over  the  people  whom  he  calls  Cameronians,  and,  as 
he  had  certainly  been  seen  in  St  James's  Square,  he  was  obliged  to 
avert  the  Jacobites'  suspicions.  How  he  did  this  he  tells  us.  They 
desired  him  to  cause  the  Cameronians  to  make  "a  public  appear- 
ance against  the  Government,"  as  this  would  encourage  the  French. 
"Therefore,"  he  says,  "I  convened  that  party  of  the  Cameronians 
which  followed  Mr  Macmillan,  one  of  their  preachers,  at  Sanquhar, 
and  at  the  Market  Cross  made  public  declaration  against  the  queen 
that  she  had  forfeited  her  right  to  the  Crown  by  imposing  the  Union 
upon  us,  and  therefore  disowned  her  authority  and  government, 
declaring  it  unlawful  to  pay  taxes  or  obey  her.  .  .  .  Though  this 
Declaration  did  not  mention  the  Pretender  expressly,  yet  it  was 
couched  so  as  to  make  the  Jacobites  hope  that  the  Cameronians 
might  be  soon  reconciled  to  that  interest."  The  Lord -Justice 
Clerk  wrote  to  Kersland  complaining  of  "  this  insolence,"  but 
Kersland  replied  that  it  was  necessary  "to  renew  the  confidence 
which  I  thought  was  proper  the  Jacobites  should  repose  in  the 
Cameronians,  and  to  confirm  my  credit  with  them,  which  I  thought 
was  declining" — as  it  was.  The  Cameronians  did  enjoy  one  of 
their  favourite  meetings  at  Sanquhar  in  October  1707;  but  far 
from  "  not  mentioning "  James,  they  "  protested  against  and  dis- 
owned the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales."'-*     The   date  of  this  per- 

VOL.    IV.  K. 


146  OGILVIE   THE   SPY  (1707). 

formance  was  October  22,  1707,  and  Ker's  account  of  the 
transaction  is  false. 

Why  Kersland  told  this  fable  is  not  plain,  unless  it  were  merely 
to  annoy  the  Cameronians,  in  which  he  perfectly  succeeded.  As  has 
been  shown,  the  writer  was  refused  access  to  the  Minutes  of  the 
Cameronian  Societies,  but  JNIr  Hay  Fleming,  more  fortunate,  states 
that  they  did  hold  a  desirable  General  Meeting  at  Crawfordjohn 
on  August  6,  1707,  and  appointed  a  Committee  "to  draw  up  a 
Protestation  and  Testimony  against  this  sinful  Union."  The  Rev. 
Mr  Macmillan,  of  whom  Kersland  speaks,  was  one  of  the  Com- 
mittee, and  the  Proclamation  was  issued  on  October  22,  1707, 
at  the  Cross  of  Sanquhar,  the  usual  place. ^"^ 

As  far  as  it  proved  the  dissatisfaction  in  Scotland,  the  Protesta- 
tion might  encourage  Louis  XIV.  to  send  James  and  a  fleet,  but 
the  Cameronian  love  for  "  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales "  was 
certainly  "dissembled." 

Finally,  at  Scone,  Hooke  negotiated  with  a  number  of  Jacobites. 
He  represents  himself  as  standing  on  the  dignity  of  so  great  a  king 
as  Louis,  who  must  be  sued  to,  and  would  tolerate  no  dictation. 
The  Scots  cut  their  demands  down  to  a  French  force  of  5000 
men, — they  would  raise  30,000, — and  to  a  petition  for  arms.  It 
was  essential  that  King  James  in  person  should  accompany  the 
expedition.  Most  of  the  signing  was  done  by  deputy  :  Breadalbane 
would  not  even  be  signed  for  :  Auchterhouse  signed  for  Lockhart. 
The  absence  of  the  handwriting  of  the  great  men  did  not  chill 
the  French  king.  Hamilton,  in  cypher  letters,  asked  for  terms 
which  he  knew  that  France  would  not  grant,  though  they  were, 
in  fact,  by  no  means  too  high.  Though  Lockhart  must  have 
known  Hamilton  well  by  this  time,  he  espouses  his  cause  in  this 
case,  as  that  of  loyalty,  common-sense,  and  caution,  which  makes 
us  marvel  why  he  commissioned  Auchterhouse  to  sign  for  himself.^^ 

Ogilvie  the  spy  (November,  17)  informed  Harley  of  the  whole 
affair,  with  some  inaccuracies.  "  I  think  I  never  ran  a  greater  risk 
of  my  life  since  I  was  born,"  he  says,  for  he  had  travelled  through 
Angus  and  Perthshire,  trusted  as  a  loyal  member  of  the  House 
of  Airlie,  and  betraying  (with  the  aid  of  his  worthy  brother)  kins- 
folk and  old  friends. ^'^  Drummond,  Breadalbane,  Ogilvy  of  Boyne, 
the  Laird  of  Logic  (his  cousin),  old  Lady  Huntly,  Graham,  a  com- 
panion in  arms  of  early  guiltless  days,  the  spy  saw  them  all,  and 
told  all  that  they  had   told   him, — which    was   much   exaggerated. 


DESIGNS   OF   FRANCE   (1707).  I47 

He  knew  that  Hamilton  "  is  resolved  to  walk  on  sure  ground, 
having  an  estate  in  England."  He  found  Catholicism  as  publicly 
professed  in  the  north-east  as  ever  it  was  under  James  II.  He 
says  that  De  Foe  "tries  to  insinuate  himself  in  several  companies, 
but  none  will  admit  him."^^  It  is  always  pleasant  to  hear  one  spy 
discourse  concerning  another. 

Hooke  had  allowed  it  to  be  supposed  that  August  would  find 
the  king  upon  the  sea,  but  everything  in  France  was  executed  in 
a  dawdling  inefficient  way  when  it  was  a  question  of  aiding  the 
Jacobites.  French  policy,  naturally,  was  to  cause  the  English  to 
remove  their  troops  from  the  Low  Countries,  and  to  embroil 
England  in  a  civil  war  with  Scotland  on  the  cheapest  terms 
possible.  Saint-Simon  says  that  Hooke  won  Caillieres  over  to  his 
idea  of  invading  in  aid  of  30,000  Scots ;  Caillieres  converted  the 
Dues  de  Chevreuse  and  Beauvilliers ;  they  secured  the  adhesion  of 
Chamillart, — but  Louis  XIV.  was  thoroughly  tired  of  his  many 
failures  in  attempting  to  make  use  of  the  Jacobites.  Finally,  the 
Due  de  Noailles  gained  Madame  de  Maintenon,  and  Louis  con- 
sented, without  enthusiasm." 

In  some  respects  the  opportunity  was  good,  Scotland  had  not 
yet  recovered  from  her  very  excusable  fit  of  ill-temper.  If  the 
country  did  not  want  James,  it  had  as  little  love  of  England ;  and 
Wodrow,  the  learned  historian  and  minister  of  Eastwood,  remarks 
that  in  his  neighbourhood  the  attempt  at  a  French  invasion  found 
people  strangely  indifferent.  The  excitement  of  the  Cameronians 
would  seem,  as  it  reached  the  ears  of  the  French,  to  be  a  good 
omen ;  and  though  very  few  nobles  and  gentlemen  met  Hooke  in 
the  conference  at  Scone,  they  were  authorised  to  sign  for  Atholl, 
with  his  warlike  Highland  following,  for  Nithsdale  and  Kenmure, 
who  were  in  earnest,  and  for  other  lords  whose  names  looked 
well  on  paper. 

The  clans  were  signed  for,  and  could  be  depended  upon,  if  they 
did  turn  out,  to  fight ;  Marischal,  though  indisposed,  gave  assur- 
ances. There  was  abundance  of  paper  promises,  and  Hooke  made 
the  most  of  them,  declaring  that  20,000  Ulster  men  would  rise. 
Probably  Hooke,  who  left  Scotland  before  Ker  of  Kersland  was 
entirely  unmasked,  based  that  dream  on  the  word  of  "  the  honest 
mealmonger,"  who  affected  to  be  deep  in  the  secrets  of  Irish  as 
well  as  of  Scottish  Presbyterians.  Hooke  believed  as  much  as  it 
suited  him  to  believe,  though  he  must  have  known  that,  thanks 


148  FOKBIN'S   FAILURE   (1708). 

to  the  sluggishness  both  of  AthoU  and  Hamilton,  which  he  quite 
appreciated,  and  to  their  disunion,  the  policy  of  France  was  to 
hazard  few  or  none  of  her  men,  but  to  feed  the  agitation  with 
money  and  arms.  He  suggested  September  1707  as  the  time 
for  the  blow,  but  it  was  delayed,  to  the  confusion  and  sorrow  of 
the  Jacobites,  till  the  winds  of  the  vernal  equinox  of  1708  were 
likely  to  ruin  everything. 

Thirty  vessels,  inclusive  of  transports,  were  prepared  at  Dunkirk 
and  elsewhere.  Forbin,  who  is  said  to  have  distinguished  himself 
on  the  British  coasts,  received  the  command :  6000  men  were 
moved  from  Flanders  to  Dunkirk.  The  secret  was  well  kept, 
says  Saint-Simon,  but  (as  the  Scots  complained)  there  was  great 
delay.  The  French,  when  they  launched  an  expedition  in  aid  of 
the  rightful  king,  usually  chose  the  season  of  the  equinoctial  gales, 
as  in  1744.  Pontchartrain  was  supposed  to  waste  time  treacher- 
ously ;  Chamillart  rivalled  him  by  dint  of  native  inefficiency  !  The 
Court  of  Saint  Germains  was  kept  in  the  dark :  James  was  to  be 
accompanied  by  Perth,  his  tutor  Sheldon,  and  but  few  others  of 
his  own  Court.  Gace — brave  but  stupid,  Vibrage — debauched  but 
brave,  were  to  lead  the  troops.  Gace  was  to  be  made  a  Marechal 
of  France  as  soon  as  they  set  foot  in  Scotland  :  James,  as  they  never 
did  set  foot  in  Scotland,  gave  him  his  commission  as  soon  as  they 
disembarked  again  in  France.  Among  the  colonels,  we  remark 
Gaydon,  later  the  companion  of  Charles  Wogan  in  rescuing  from 
prison  the  future  wife  of  the  young  Prince  whom  he  now  accom- 
panied on  a  sleeveless  errand.  The  king  left  Saint  Germains  on 
March  6,  probably  unaware  that  he  was  sickening  of  measles.  On 
the  nth  came  a  messenger  with  news  that  the  British  fleet  was 
blockading  Dunkirk,  and  that  James  was  determined  on  fighting 
his  way  through.  The  English,  however,  had  retired,  and  young 
James,  now  in  full  measles,  and  wrapped  in  blankets,  insisted  on 
being  carried  aboard.^'^ 

On  the  17th  of  March  the  expedition  started,  with  five  men-of- 
war,  twenty-one  frigates,  and  two  transports. ^*^  The  weather  de- 
tained them  at  Nieuport  till  the  19th,  and  three  vessels  were  driven 
back  into  Dunkirk.  But  James  refused  to  wait  for  them,  though 
his  force  was  only  about  half  of  the  lowest  estimate  that  the  Scots 
desired.  They  intended,  says  Andrezel,  to  disembark  at  Burnt- 
island, and  thence  send  a  detachment  to  seize  the  bridge  at  Stirling, 
and  keep  the  way  open  for  the  gentlemen  of  Angus  and  the  clans. 


JACOBITE   FIASCO   (1708).  I49 

*' His  Britannic  Majesty  became  very  sick."  On  the  23rd  (22nd?) 
they  saw  the  Scottish  coast,  but  found  they  were  too  far  north. 
They  came  back,  and  Forbin  sent  a  vessel  up  the  Firth  of  Forth 
to  fire  five  guns,  the  preconcerted  signal.  On  the  24th  they  lay 
behind  the  Isle  of  May,  when,  at  dawn,  they  detected  an  English 
fleet  and  fled  north.  Lockhart  lays  the  blame  of  the  fiasco  on  one 
George,  a  pilot,  who  got  drunk  and  missed  his  opportunity — a 
thoroughly  orthodox  Jacobite  proceeding.^"^ 

The  English  Government  had  completely  neglected  to  provide 
stores  and  ammunition  for  Edinburgh  Castle,  where  Leven  mustered 
his  slender  command,  marched  to  Leith  sands,  and  put  a  bold  face 
on  the  situation.  But  the  fleet  did  all  that  was  needed,  chased 
Forbin,  and  took  a  vessel,  previously  English,  The  Salisbury,  with 
plenty  of  money  and  stores.  Wodrow  heard  a  tale  that  James  was 
taken  prisoner  on  The  Salisbury,  but  was  released.  Happy  on 
the  24th,  on  the  25th  the  Jacobites  in  Edinburgh  learned  that 
Sir  George  Byng  had  simply  frightened  the  French  away.  James 
wished  to  land  at  Inverness,  or  anywhere,  but  there  was  a  heavy 
sea  and  no  pilot ;  so  Forbin  sailed  home  again,  arriving  at  Dunkirk 
on  April  7  with  the  remnant  of  his  fleet  in  melancholy  case.^^ 
While  the  king  was  on  the  sea,  Hamilton  had  been  at  his  English 
place  in  Lancashire,  quite  safe,  as  usual, — indeed  a  kind  of  prisoner ; 
and  though  Lockhart  defends  his  honesty,  that  quality  is  more 
disputable  by  far  than  the  loyalty  of  Louis  XIV.  "  I  can't  alto- 
gether condemn  those  who  are  of  opinion  that  the  French  king 
did  never  design  the  king  should  land,"  says  Lockhart ;  but  Louis 
must  have  longed  to  see  the  last  of  James.  No  Franco-Jacobite 
enterprise  ever  excelled  in  imbecility  that  of  1708,  when,  if  the 
king  had  landed  with  only  his  valet,  says  Ker  of  Kersland,  the 
country  would  have  risen  for  him. 

As  to  that  rogue  Kersland,  the  Jacobites  had  found  him  out; 
indeed,  few  but  women  like  the  Duchess  of  Gordon,  priests,  and 
adventurers  had  ever  trusted  him.  But  Hooke  was  among  the 
confiding  adventurers.  In  January  1708  Ker  tells  us  that  he 
lamented  the  unprepared  state  of  the  Castle,  and  went  to  London 
in  February-March  1708.  When  the  news  of  Forbin's  start  arrived, 
Harley  requested  him  to  go  home  again.  Kersland  represented 
that  he  could  induce  the  Cameronians  to  meet  and  declare  against 
the  Pretender ;  and  also  asked  for  money  to  pay  the  arrears  of 
the  officers  of  the  Cameronian  regiment,  the  victors  of  Dunkeld. 


150  END   OF   KERSLAND. 

Here  he  tells  truth  :  in  the  Portland  papers  is  a  letter  of  Kersland 
to  Harley,  of  1709,  referring  to  the  transaction.^^  Kersland  went 
home,  assembled  the  leading  men  of  the  Cameronians  at  Sanquhar, 
quoted  the  Bible,  and  induced  the  Cameronians  to  "declare  against 
the  Pretender."  But  still  Harley  did  not  send  the  money  to  pay 
the  officers'  arrears.  Kersland,  who  is  perplexing  with  his  doings 
at  Sanquhar,  after  this  time  ceased  to  be  of  influence.  He  was 
not  better  rewarded  than  De  Foe,  who  deserved  such  recom- 
pense as  he  never  received.  As  to  the  controversy  about  the 
Cameronian-Jacobite  alliance,  it  seems  highly  improbable,  or  im- 
possible, that  the  society  men  were  officially  engaged  through  their 
societies.  But  the  poHticians  of  the  day  applied  the  term  "  Camer- 
onian  "  to  malcontents  of  Covenanting  principles,  of  whom  many 
were  not,  strictly  speaking,  Cameronians  or  Dissenters. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   VI. 

^  Hooke's  Correspondence,  ii.  230,  231. 

-  For  these  letters  the  author  is  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Lady  Alice  Archer- 
Houblon. 

3  De  Foe,  in  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  pp.  394,  395,  401,  408,  431,  432. 

*  Ker  of  Kersland,  i.  37-43.  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  ut  supra,  pp.  528,  529.  The 
letter  is  of  October  26,  1709,  but  seems  the  same  as  one  of  May  170S,  given  by 
Ker,  Memoirs,  i.  68,  69. 

'^  Ker,  of  Kersland,  i.  45-47. 

*  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  302. 
^  Kersland,  i.  49,  50. 

*  Hist.  M.SS.  Com.,  ///  supra,  p.  456. 

"  Infoimatory  Vindication,  pp.  270,  107. 
^o  United  Presbyterian  Magazine,  May  1898,  p.  210. 
"  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  231,  232.     Hooke's  Correspondence,  ii.  369. 
'-  Hist.  MS.S.  Com.,  ut  supra,  pp.  460,  461. 
'2  Hist.  M.S.S.  Com.,  ut  supra,  pp.  465,  466. 
"  Saint-.Simon,  Mcmoires,  vi.  II7-I19:   1829. 
"  Saint-.Sinion,  vi.  126. 

'8  Andrezel  in  .Secret  History  of  Colonel  Hooke's  Negotiations,  p.  139:   1760. 
'^  Lockhart  Papt-rs,  i.  240. 

'8  Journal  of  Gace  (Marcchal  de  Matignon),  Secret  History  of  Colonel  Hooke's 
Negotiations,  p.  147. 

"»  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  xv.  iv. 


151 


CHAPTER    VII. 

JACOBITES    AND    WILD   WHIGS. 
1708-1714. 

Few  things  were  more  apt  to  inflame  Scottish  national  feeling  than 
the  transport  of  many  Scots  gentlemen  and  peers,  suspected  of 
accession  to  Forbin's  futile  attack,  to  London.  Among  these  was 
the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  who,  by  promises  of  political  aid  from 
himself  and  his  party  to  the  Whigs,  obtained  the  release  of  all 
but  three  prisoners.  These  were  sent  back  to  Edinburgh,  tried, 
and  acquitted.  In  the  ensuing  elections  for  the  first  British  Parlia- 
ment of  the  autumn  of  1708,  the  Cavaliers  in  Scotland  were 
inactive,  being  apprehensive  of  accusation  and  imprisonment. 
Lockhart,  for  Mid-Lothian,  was  elected,  despite  Presbyterian  and 
courtly  opposition.  The  small  band  of  Jacobites  chosen  had  no 
view  except  to  secure  the  safety  of  their  friends  implicated  in  the 
recent  attempt.  Parties  were  in  such  unstable  equilibrium  that 
the  Court,  the  Government,  could  be  neither  called  good  Tory 
nor  good  Whig,  but  simply  "  the  Court."  They  secured  a  vote 
acquitting  them,  very  unjustly,  of  negligence  of  national  defence, 
and  had  the  support  of  the  majority  of  the  Scots.  Eldest  sons 
of  Scots  peers  were  made  incapable  of  election  to  the  British  House 
of  Commons  for  any  Scottish  county  or  burgh, — a  rebuke,  Cavaliers 
thought,  to  the  sycophancy  of  these  peers,  "the  chief  instruments," 
says  Lockhart,  "of  selling  and  betraying  their  country."  Scottish 
peers,  such  as  Queensberry,  who  were  also  peers  of  England,  were 
debarred  from  voting  for  the  Scottish  elective  peers  sitting  in  the 
House  of  Lords. 

More  important  was   a  measure  which  substituted   the   English 
for  the  Scottish  law  in  cases  of  treason.     This  had  all  the  appear- 


152  LAW   OF   TREASON   MODIFIED   (l  708-1 709). 

ance  of  defying  the  first  principles  of  the  Union,  though  it  was 
almost  necessary,  in  the  circumstances,  that,  in  the  united  nation, 
treason  should  have  one  definition,  one  mode  of  trial,  and  one 
penalty.  The  Scottish  members  unanimously  opposed  the  Bill : 
their  laws  and  judiciary  court  had  been  secured  by  the  Union, 
and  their  laws  were,  in  many  points,  more  fair  to  the  accused, 
and  rather  worthy  of  English  adoption  than  of  repeal.  But  the 
Ministry  had  been  greatly  alarmed  by  the  French  naval  demon- 
stration, and  they  feared  another,  and  determined  to  be  at  least 
legally  forearmed.  In  vain  was  it  urged  that  the  accused  had  a 
right,  as  in  Scotland,  to  know  beforehand  what  evidence  against 
them  they  had  to  meet.  In  vain  was  the  cruelty  of  visiting  by 
forfeiture,  and  "corruption  of  blood,"  the  sins  of  the  fathers  on 
the  innocent  heads  of  the  posterity  denounced.  In  Scotland  such 
forfeitures,  often  enacted,  had  but  seldom  been  carried  into 
action.  A  few  years  had  generally  brought  restoration  to  rank  and 
lands,  except  in  the  unusual  case  of  the  Gowries.  Torture,  how- 
ever, was  abolished;  but  the  English  Commission  of  Oyer  and 
Terminer  was  introduced,  always  to  include  one  Scottish  Lord  of 
Session.  Thus  the  measure  passed  the  Lords ;  but  the  Commons 
exempted  landed  estates  from  forfeiture,  and  permitted  the  accused 
to  know  the  evidence  against  him  ten  days  before  his  trial, — ameli- 
orations modified  by  the  clause  that  they  should  only  become 
law  after  the  House  of  Hanover  had  been  for  three  years  settled 
on  the  British  throne.  Had  they  waited,  as  Somers  proposed,  till 
the  death  of  "the  Pretender,"  they  would  have  waited  till  the 
early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  and  the  decease  of  the 
Cardinal  Duke  of  York.^ 

Though  divided  among  themselves,  the  Forty-Five  Scots  mem- 
bers could  unite  on  occasion  and  make  themselves  dangerous  to 
any  who  insulted  their  country.  In  17 10,  Sacheverell,  and  "The 
Church  in  danger,"  with  the  queen's  resentment  of  the  temper 
of  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  drove  out  the  Whigs,  and  intro- 
duced Harley  and  St  John  to  power.  Hamilton  had  been  induced 
by  Lockhart,  contrary  to  all  hope,  to  vote  for  the  acquittal  of 
the  noisy  Sacheverell,  with  Mar,  soon  to  be  so  notorious,  Wemyss, 
and  Northesk.  The  other  Scottish  peers  had  supported  the  falling 
Ministry.  Argyll,  too,  whom  Marlborough  greatly  distrusted,  was 
active  in  procuring  their  dismissal.'^ 

The  elections  for  the  new  Parliament  were  conducted  with  the 


TAXATION    AND   TOLERANCE.  I  53 

usual  spirit  and  candour.  The  Whigs  *'  bellowed  that  Popery  and 
the  Pretender  were  coming  in,"  the  Tories  "  that  the  Church  and 
the  Monarchy  were  rescued  from  the  very  brink  of  perdition,"  says 
the  sardonic  Lockhart.  In  Scotland  the  Whigs  added  that  Pres- 
bytery was  in  danger,  as  now,  in  England,  the  mitre  was  pushing 
with  its  horns.  The  Cavaliers  did  not  "bellow,"  but  whispered 
over  their  claret  that  "  now  or  never  was  the  time  to  bring  in  the 
king  and  dissolve  the  Union."  Hamilton,  Argyll,  and  Mar  lent 
all  their  influence  to  Tory  candidates.  All  the  peers  were  for 
Harley  and  St  John,  and  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons  were  "  on  the  Tory  lay  "  :  the  new  "  Court,"  however, 
the  new  Ministry  in  England,  did  not  back  "  the  Tory  lay  " — Harley 
not  so  much  desiring  a  sweeping  majority  as  a  balance  of  parties. 
He  soon  showed  that  he  had  no  desire  to  conciliate  Scotland.  A 
duty  for  thirty-two  years  was  imposed  on  exported  linen,  "the 
staple  and  chief  commodity  of  Scotland."  Baillie  of  Jerviswoode 
argued  that  while  English  woollens  were  free  it  was  unfair  to  tax 
Scottish  linens,  above  all  as  Scottish  woollens  were  now  prejudiced 
by  the  free  admission  of  rival  English  goods.  "  Have  we  not 
bought  the  Scots,  and  have  we  not  a  right  to  tax  them  ?  "  Harley 
is  reported  by  Lockhart  to  have  asked.^  No  wonder  that  the  Union 
was  now  the  object  of  universal  popular  hatred  in  Scotland.* 

Lockhart  retorted  on  Harley  with  spirit.  He  was  glad  to  hear 
Harley's  avowal  of  what  he  had  never  doubted,  that  Scotland  had 
been  bought  and  sold.  What  was  the  price,  and  who  received  it  ? 
A  slight  technical  modification  for  the  relief  of  Scottish  manufacturers 
was  accepted,  and  after  a  great  loss  of  time  and  trouble  "  the  bill 
was  let  fall."  Jerviswoode  had  justly  remarked  that  members 
"were  sometimes  for  acting  as  if  the  two  kingdoms  were  united, 
and  sometimes  as  if  they  were  not  so,"  and  as  if  England  alone 
was  to  be  considered. 

Lockhart  and  his  allies  had  now  shaken  off  the  influence  of 
the  sixteen  representative  Scottish  peers,  and  were  actually  con- 
sulted by  the  English  Ministry  on  the  afiairs  of  their  country. 
Lockhart  thereon  resolved  to  bring  in  a  Bill  for  the  toleration  of 
the  Episcopal  clergy  in  Scotland.  At  this  time  "the  public  in- 
terest of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church  .  .  .  had  a 
melancholy  aspect,"  as  the  Rev.  Mr  Maxwell,  a  minister  near 
Dundee,  wrote  to  Wodrow  (Nov.  7,  1709).  The  "ill-mumbled 
Mass,"  the  English  Prayer-Book,  had  invaded  Scotland.     The  Earl 


154  THE   CASE   OF   GREENSHIELDS   (1711). 

of  Strathmore  had  been  buried  with  AngHcan  rites,  the  clergy 
present  "  being  arrayed  in  their  canonick  gowns."  Magistrates 
dedined  to  execute  judgment  on  the  guilty  Episcopalians.  "  It 
is  to  be  feared  judgements,  sudden  judgements,  are  not  far  off."  ^ 

The  dreaded  Prayer-Books  appear  to  have  come  in  with  "the 
English  excisemen  and  such  cattle,"  as  Wodrow  says,  in  1707. 
In  that  year  the  General  Assembly  passed  an  Act  against  the 
use  of  the  Liturgy,  and  took  other  measures.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that,  even  under  Charles  II.,  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  Scotland 
had  not,  with  the  rarest  exceptions,  read  the  Anglican  prayers. 
The  old  objections  to  what  Leighton  thought  decency  and  order 
in  worship  held  their  ground.  Only  some  parishioners  abstained 
from  wearing  their  hats  in  church,  "  which  our  Presbyterians  do 
but  by  halves,  even  in  the  time  of  prayer."  "Amen,"  too,  gave 
great  offence.^  Laud's  Service -Book  was  not  yet  reprinted,  not 
till  1 712,  and  was  very  rare.  This  book  has  long  been  a  cause 
offends  among  the  Scottish  Episcopalians,  but,  in  1709,  not  Laud's 
but  the  ordinary  English  Prayer -Book  was  threatening  the  pure 
atmosphere  of  the  North.  "Judgements,  sudden  judgements" 
might  be,  and  were  anticipated,  as  Knox  prophesied  them  when 
Queen  Mary  was  allowed  to  have  her  Mass. 

At  this  juncture  the  Rev.  Mr  Greenshields  was  much  in  the 
public  mouth.  Lockhart  says  that  he  was  the  son  of  a  Scots 
Episcopal  minister,  rabbled  out  of  his  parish  in  1688- 1689.  The 
young  man  had  taken  the  Abjuration  Oath  against  King  James, 
and  he  now  officiated  in  an  Episcopal  chapel  in  Edinburgh.  It 
was  unlicensed  by  the  Bishop — perhaps  because  Greenshields  did 
pray  for  Queen  Anne.  Probably  he  made  himself  very  conspicuous  : 
in  any  case,  he  was  summoned  before  the  Presbytery,  handed  over 
to  the  secular  arm,  and  imprisoned.  The  Lords  of  Session  affirmed 
the  decision  of  the  magistrates,  and  Greenshields  announced  his 
intention  to  carry  his  case  to  the  Lords.  They  were  occupied  with 
Sacheverell's  case,  but,  in  1710-171 1,  the  Tories  being  now  in  force, 
Eglintoun,  Balmerino,  and  Lockhart  "buoyed  up  Mr  Greenshields." 
Harley  found  fault  with  Lockhart,  privately :  the  affair,  he  said,  would 
only  cause  irritation  between  the  Church  party  in  England  and  the 
Presbyterians  in  Scotland.  Lockhart  replied  that  the  Presbyterians 
"  were  as  much  exasperate  already  as  they  could  be,"  in  which  he 
misjudged  their  faculty  of  being  exasperated.  They  were  "giving 
him  [Harley]  over  to  the  gallows  and  the  devil  from  their  pulpits." 


COMPLAINTS   OP^   TIIK    KIRK   (1710-1711).  1 55 

Harlcy  was  disappointed  :  the  Scots  Tory  members  successfully 
made  interest  with  the  Lords,  "  the  sentence  of  the  Lords  of  Session 
was  reversed,  and  the  city  of  Edinburgh  ordained  to  pay  swinging 
costs  to  Mr  Greenshields."  ^  Episcopal  chapels  increased  in  number, 
and  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book  spread.  Even  within  the  Kirk 
herself  there  were  distressing  symptoms  of  a  desire  for  order  in 
public  worship, — a  reaction  against  the  negligent  irreverences  which 
ensued  after  the  Knoxian  Book  of  Order  fell  entirely  out  of  use. 
Wodrow  heard  with  pain  that,  in  Ireland,  young  ministers  "are 
setting  up  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  at  the  end  of  their  public 
prayers,  recommending  mightily  premeditate  prayers,  and  kneeling 
in  the  time  of  public  prayer."  These  things  "  were  very  uneasy  to 
the  honest  old  men  that  have  seen  the  glory  of  the  old  temple."^ 
The  godly  ideal  of  public  prayer  seems  to  have  been  that  there 
should  be  no  premeditation  ;  not  even  the  minister  himself  should 
know  what  he  was  going  to  say  next;  "a  great  gale"  of  spiritual 
influence  should  carry  him  along,  probably  over  a  sea  of  nonsense. 
The  General  Assembly  (17 10)  perceived  an  extraordinary  growth 
of  Popery  in  the  north  and  the  islands,  "large  countries  never 
reformed."  In  140  years  since  the  Reformation,  great  districts,  it 
appears,  were  not  allowed  to  be  Catholic,  or  instructed  in  being 
Protestant.^  On  the  other  hand,  irresponsible  persons  went  about 
prophesying  in  the  streets  of  Edinburgh :  apparently  they  were 
disciples  of  visionaries  of  the  Cevennes,  where  persecution  had 
produced  a  "  revival,"  with  the  strange  physical  and  psychological 
phenomena  which  usually  accompany  what  Wodrow  called  "en- 
thusiasm." Wodrow  saw  that,  as  regarded  the  use  of  the  Prayer- 
Book,  the  nobles  and  gentry  encouraged  it,  "  and  we  are  just  the 
reverse  now  of  what  we  were  in  1636."  The  uproar  against  the 
Prayer-Book  had  really,  no  doubt,  been  resistance  to  the  despotism 
of  Charles  I.,  rather  than  the  result  of  a  reasoned  consideration  of 
the  relative  merits  of  the  two  systems  of  public  worship, — of  prayer 
without  and  prayer  with  a  liturgy. 

But  the  verdict  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  Greenshields'  case 
was  apt  to  have  its  chief  effect,  as  the  Cavaliers  probably  hoped, 
in  strengthening  the  general  Presbyterian  hatred  of  the  Union.  The 
House  of  Lords,  as  a  voting  body, — not  merely  the  professional 
lawyers  in  the  House, — were  overriding  by  their  tolerance  the 
desires  of  the  National  Church  of  Scotland,  as  well  as  the  decisions 
of  the  Scottish  judges.     More  trouble  arose  on  that  ancient  dififi- 


156  TOLERATION    AND   ABJURATION    (1714). 

•culty,  the  right  of  the  Kirk  to  proclaim  national  fasts  when  she 
thought  fit :  these  fasts  had  been  used  for  purposes  of  religio- 
political  agitation,  as  just  before  the  brief  revolution  at  the  moment 
of  Riccio's  murder  (1566).  A  clerical  deputation,  including  Mr 
Blackwell  of  Aberdeen,  visited  London  (17 11),  and  was  court- 
eously received  by  Harley,  who  understood  the  importance  of 
conciliating  Presbytery.  He  "  promised  the  civil  sanction "  to 
the  fast.^*^  Blackwell  found  that  toleration  for  Episcopalians  was 
threatened,  and  that  Patronage  in  Kirk  livings  was,  if  possible,  to 
be  restored.  The  Kirk,  "which  God  had  kept  pure  so  many 
years,"  was  in  peril  of  "corruption."  By  January  24,  17 12,  the 
Bill  for  Toleration  had  been  read  once  in  the  Commons,  and 
Blackwell,  with  the  veteran  Carstares,  ran  about  the  city  laying 
"  the  fatal  consequences "  before  members  and  Harley.  They 
found  that  there  was  a  purpose  of  tacking  the  Oath  of  Abjuration 
(of  King  James)  to  the  Toleration,  a  thing  not  agreeable  to  Jacobite 
Episcopalians.  Blackwell,  Carstares,  Lockhart,  and  others  met  with 
the  Earl  of  Islay,  brother  of  Argyll,  and  Carstares  disclaimed  any 
desire  to  persecute  Episcopalians.  But  he  said  if  the  clause  in  the 
Bill  removing  non-Episcopalians  from  the  power  of  the  courts  of 
the  Kirk  were  passed,  scandalous  persons,  by  ceasing  to  be  Pres- 
byterians, would  evade  Kirk  censures.  Lockhart  suggested  an 
ironical  motive  for  Carstares'  anxiety,  and  the  clause  was  dropped. 
Civil  magistrates  were  not  to  compel  any  man  to  submit  to  the 
sentences  of  Church  judicatories,  —  the  day  of  that  tyranny  was 
overpast.''^ 

Meanwhile  Blackwell  and  Carstares  waited  on  the  queen,  explain- 
ing that  their  own  clergy,  as  well  as  the  Jacobites,  had  scruples 
about  the  Abjuration,  as  implying,  says  Lockhart,  a  tacit  approval 
of  the  monarch's  adhesion  to  the  Church  of  England, — "  a  thing 
contrary  to  their  principles  and  repugnant  to  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant,  which,  they  thought,  was  and  would  be  for  ever 
binding"!  The  Scots  Tory  members  were  mischievously  resolved 
to  make  the  Abjuration  as  "  uneasy  "  to  Presbyterian  sticklers  as  it 
was  to  their  own  clergy.  In  this  they  succeeded,  and  exposed  "  the 
little  chirking  Jesuitical  shifts  of  the  godly,"  who  had  thought  to 
remove  the  burden  from  Presbyterian  shoulders  by  substituting 
which  for  as  in  a  clause  of  the  Bill.  The  evasion  is  hardly  per- 
ceptible to  any  but  "  scrupulous  brethren "  and  metaphysical 
grammarians,  and  the  brethren  were  disappointed  after  all. 


THE   QUESTION   OK   PATRONAGE.  I  57 

Many  Covenanting  ministers  could  not  take  the  oath,  —  "they 
had  no  clearness."  Wodrovv's  letters  are  full  of  anguish ;  but  the 
Episcopalian  Jacobites  who  could  not  take  it  must  escape  penalties 
if  the  non-juring  Presbyterians  were  allowed  to  escape.  A  feud 
arose  between  Presbyterian  jurors  and  non-jurors,  who  fought  like 
the  Protesters  and  Resolutioners  after  1650,  The  ist  of  August 
was  the  "dismal  day,"  in  Wodrow's  phrase,  when  the  Erastian  oath 
of  Abjuration  was  to  be  taken ;  and  every  minister  was  compelled 
by  the  State  to  pray  for  Queen  Anne  and  the  Protestant  succession. 
The  Presbyterians  were  anxious  for  the  welfare  of  both,  but  loathed 
being  constrained  to  pray  as  they  desired  to  pray.  The  oath  was 
a  test,  and  the  test  was  inconsistent,  they  said,  with  the  terms  in 
which  the  Treaty  of  Union  had  secured  the  Presbyterian  Estab- 
lishment. All  this  was  quite  true,  and  it  seemed  as  if  either  the 
terms  of  the  Union  must  be  broken  or  the  germs  of  religious 
toleration  must  be  trampled  down.  Time  and  the  tendency  of 
thought  preserved  both  Union  and  Toleration. 

Time  worked  more  slowly  for  the  abatement  of  the  fever  caused 
by  the  restoration  of  Patronage, — a  measure  procured  by  the  com- 
bination of  English  churchmen  and  Scottish  Jacobite  members, 
contrary  to  the  desire  of  Harley.  If  the  lairds,  many  of  them 
Jacobites,  could  present  ministers  to  livings,  they  certainly  would 
not  select  preachers  who  believed  that  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  was  eternally  binding,  or  who  were  especially  strict  in 
enforcing  Kirk  censures.  They  could  hardly  expect,  in  their  most 
sanguine  hours,  to  obtain  Presbyterian  Jacobite  ministers,  but 
ministers  less  severe  and  less  Covenanting  than  the  Presbyterian 
non-jurors,  or  "Nons"  as  they  were  styled,  might  be  obtained, — men 
not  so  much  inclined  as  the  "  Nons  "  to  persecute  Episcopalians ; 
even  men  who  used  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  premeditated  their  own 
public  supplications,  instead  of  trusting  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
moment. 

Patronage  had  passed  through  many  phases  since  the  Reformation, 
previous  to  which  it  had  mainly  been  in  ecclesiastical  hands,  except 
in  the  case  of  very  good  things,  when  the  great  had  their  way.  In 
Knox's  doctrine  each  congregation  had  the  right  to  elect  its  own 
preacher,  who  was  inducted  after  due  examination  into  his  life 
and  doctrinal  soundness.  But  we  have  seen  that,  within  twelve 
years  of  the  Reformation,  patrons  were  presenting  now  and  then  such 
abandoned  villains  and   hopelessly  unqualified   men  as   Archibald 


158  HISTORY   OF   PATRONAGE   (l 560-1  592). 

Douglas,  who  was  parson  of  Glasgow.  Wherever  there  were  still 
any  pickings  on  the  bones  of  the  despoiled  Church,  young  men 
of  family  were  intruded  on  the  congregations,  as  the  Acts  of  the 
Kirk  against  the  luxurious  practices  of  such  ministers  suffice  to 
prove. 

The  successive  conditions  of  affairs  as  to  patronage  in  Scotland 
may  be  summarised  from  the  work  of  a  competent  authority.^^  His 
book  was  published  during  the  excitement  of  the  Disruption  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  In  the  early  years  of  the  Reformation  parish 
ministers  were  appointed  not  so  much  to  a  benefice  (often  there 
was  no  "  living  "),  but  to  the  office  of  spiritual  pastors  of  the  flock 
which  chose  them.  By  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline — that  associ- 
ated with  the  name  of  Andrew  Melville — they  were  appointed  "  by 
the  judgement  of  the  Eldership  [Presbytery]  and  consent  of  the  con- 
gregation^  This  was  made  a  strong  point :  no  minister  was  to  be 
intruded  on  an  unwilling  local  flock.  But  the  representatives  of  the 
original  founders  and  patrons  of  churches,  and  also  the  new  lay- 
holders  of  church  property,  and  churches  attached  to  religious 
houses,  chapters  of  cathedrals,  and  bishoprics,  —  "The  Lords  of 
Erection  "  as  they  were  called, — also  claimed  rights  of  presentation 
to  these  churches,  of  which  the  new  Protestant  ministers  did  not 
receive  the  benefices.  Queen  Mary  had  arranged  that  a  third  of 
the  benefices  should  be  divided  between  herself  and  in  stipends  to 
the  ministers,  who  seldom  succeeded  in  getting  the  money  or  payment 
in  kind.  Under  the  Regent  Moray  (1567)  the  Legislature  applied 
itself  to  levying  and  allotting  these  thirds  of  the  benefices  to  the 
ministers;  and  "the  admission  of  ministers  was  declared  to  be  'only 
in  the  power  of  the  Kirk,' " — defined  as  the  ministers,  and  such  of 
the  people  as  were  communicants.  The  admission  was  in  the  power 
of  the  Kirk,  but  the  ^^presentation  of  /aic  patronages  "  was  reserved 
to  "the  just  and  ancient  patrons."  The  presentation  to  other  cures, 
which  had  been  ecclesiastical  and  were  by  far  the  more  numerous, 
was  in  1567  reserved  to  the  Kirk,  which  could  also,  in  laic  patron- 
ages, refuse  on  sufficient  grounds  the  presentee  of  the  patron,  who 
then,  if  he  chose,  could  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly.  But  it 
would  appear,  from  the  case  of  Archibald  Douglas  and  others,  that 
in  the  tumultuous  age  of  the  Douglas  wars  the  Kirk  had  little  power 
of  resistance  to  men  like  Morton.  Then  came  James  VL  with  his 
heritable  grants  of  the  great  benefices  to  his  nobles  and  favourites, 
"The  Lords  of  Erection,"  who  now  were  patrons  of  the  benefices  or 


HISTORY   OF   PATRONAGE   (1592-17 12).  159 

vicarages  that  had  been  in  ecclesiastical  hands  before  the  Reforma- 
tion. 'I'hey  paid  the  stipends  of  ministers  out  of  their  tithes,  and 
presented  the  ministers. 

It  came  to  the  point  that  "  one  gentleman  has  right  to  force  a 
minister  upon  all  the  ancient  and  great  heritors  of  the  parish," 
as  Sir  George  Mackenzie — "  Bluidy  Mackenzie  " — himself  declared. 
There  were  great  abuses,  against  which  remonstrances  were  vainly 
made  in  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  and  "  liberty  of  election  " 
by  the  Kirk  was  demanded.  But  this  was  refused  even  in  that 
golden  charter  of  the  Kirk,  the  Act  of  1592.  The  patron  was  to 
direct  his  presentation  to  the  Presbytery  in  each  case,  and  the 
Presbytery  was  compelled  to  adm.it  any  "qualified"  presentee.  In 
1 61 2  the  presentation  was  to  be  directed  to  the  Bishop,  no  longer 
to  the  Presbytery.  In  the  Parliament  of  1649,  the  Whigamore 
Parliament,  lay  patronage  was  abolished :  the  kirk-session  chose 
the  minister,  who,  if  approved  of  by  the  congregation,  was  admitted 
by  the  Presbytery.  At  the  Restoration  the  Act  of  1649  was  annihil- 
ated by  the  Rescissory  Act.  In  1690  patronage  was  again  abolished : 
the  elders  and  Protestant  heritors  were  to  choose  the  minister,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  congregation,  subject  again  to  the 
decision  of  the  Presbytery.  By  way  of  compensation  patrons  were 
to  receive  ;{^33,  6s.  8d.  from  the  parish,  executing  a  formal  re- 
nunciation of  their  patronage. 

The  new  Act,  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  repealed  the 
Act  of  1690,  save  in  the  very  few  cases  in  which  patrons  had 
already  made  formal  renunciations  of  their  rights.  The  protest 
presented  to  the  Lords  by  Carstares,  Blackwell,  and  Baillie^^  re- 
garded the  new  Act  as  a  breach  of  the  Treaty  of  Union.  Objection 
was  made  that  the  protest  was  directed  to  the  peers,  and  the  bishops 
had  to  be  included  in  the  reference.  The  Abjuration,  the  restora- 
tion of  patronage,  and  the  establishment  of  a  Christmas  vacation 
were  all  very  grievous  to  the  more  serious  concerned  ministers, 
but  they  had  no  longer  the  vigour  for  resistance.  They  had, 
however,  the  more  popular  cause.  The  Abjuration  Oath,  though 
later  modified  in  17 15  and  1719,  remained  a  sore  in  the  body 
ecclesiastical,  and  a  cause  of  schism  or  dissent.  But  nobody  perse- 
cuted the  Presbyterian  non-jurors,  nobody  evicted  them  from 
their  manses  and  glebes.  They  and  their  sympathisers  rather 
reviled  and  rebuked  ministers  who  had  "  found  light "  and  were 
"clear"  to  take  the  oath.      The  seed  of  the  Covenant  was  very 


l6o  MR   MACMILLAN'S   CAREER. 

active,  and  a  kind   of  Cameronianism  flourished,  under  the   Rev, 
Messrs  Hepburn  and  MacMillan,  in  the  south-west. 

The  career  of  this  minister,  Mr  MacMillan,  a  notable  figure  in 
those  days,  is  interesting  mainly  because  it  throws  light  on  the 
conditions  of  life  and  opinion  among  the  persons  who  most  closely 
adhered  to  the  old  Scottish  Presbyterian  ideals.  John  MacMillan 
is  generally  said  to  have  been  born  in  1669  at  Barncauchlaw,  a 
farm  in  the  solitudes  of  the  parish  of  Minnigaff  in  Galloway.  The 
precise  place  and  date  may  not  be  certain,  but  assuredly  MacMillan 
was  a  child  of  the  chief  centre  of  the  later  Covenanters.  He  went 
to  the  university  late  in  life  if  he  was  born  in  1669,  for  he  did  not 
matriculate  at  Edinburgh  till  1695,  taking  his  Master's  degree  in 
1697.  He  now  broke  off  his  connection  with  one  of  the  societies 
of  Cameronians,  who  at  this  time  had  no  ordained  minister.  They 
set  a  higher  value  on  ordination  than  Knox  had  done  :  a  mere 
"  call "  from  a  local  set  of  devotees  was  not  enough  in  their  opinion, 
though  it  had  sufficed  for  preachers  before  1560.  Friends  of  Mac- 
Millan argue  that  he  now  united  himself  with  the  State  Church 
in  the  hopes  of  improving  its  ideas ;  besides,  in  no  other  way  could 
he  become  a  minister.  In  1701,  receiving  a  harmonious  call  from 
the  parish  of  Balmaghie,  he  obliged  himself  to  adhere  to  *'  the 
discipline  of  the  Kirk,"  and  "  submit  to  the  judicatories,  and  the 
Presbytery  in  particular," — promises  which  he  did  not  keep.  He 
was  then  regarded  with  suspicion  as  a  "  separatist."  One  of  those 
who  suspected  him  most  was  Mr  Andrew  Cameron,  a  brother  of 
Richard  Cameron,  who  died  "praying  and  fighting"  at  the  skirmish 
of  Airsmoss,  leaving  his  name  to  the  Cameronians.  The  Moderator 
at  MacMillan's  induction  was  the  Rev.  Alexander  Telfair,  author 
of  a  pamphlet  on  the  poltergeist  at  Rerrick,  where  there  had 
been  the  usual  phenomena  of  movements  of  objects  apparently 
without  physical  contact,  unexplained  noises,  flights  of  stones  and 
furniture,  apparitions  of  detached  hands,  and  fire-raising.  Telfair's 
narrative  is  unusually  well  drawn-up,  all  the  evidence  being  authenti- 
cated by  the  signatures  of  witnesses,  lairds  and  ministers.^* 

The  Presbytery  still  practised  Kirk  discipline  with  vigour,  but, 
when  subjected  to  the  greater  excommunication,  gentlemen  refused 
to  wear  sackcloth  and  undergo  other  public  humiliations.  A  piece 
of  church  plate,  "  the  MacMillan  cup,"  was  later  thought  to  have 
mystical  virtues.  "  None  who  was  unworthy  could  look  on  '  Mac- 
Millan's cup'  without  plain  tokens  of  guilty  confusion."     In  1702 


CAREKR    OF   MR    MACMILLAN.  l6l 

a  fast  was  appointed  throughout  the  Presbytery,  on  account  of 
such  sins  as  "  manifold  witchcrafts  and  dreadful  breach "  of  the 
Covenants,  also  "  murders,  whereof  some  are  unnatural,"  Erastian 
encroachments,  and  the  supineness  of  "church  officers."  As  to 
witchcraft,  or  at  least  burning  for  witchcraft,  the  days  of  that 
cruelty  were  numbered.  As  late  as  1726  Wodrow  notes  the  pros- 
ecution of  some  witches  reported  by  ministers  of  Ross.  "  One  of 
them,  at  death,"  confessed  that  she  and  her  set  had  blinded  an 
Episcopal  clergyman, — surely  a  pardonable  act  of  zeal.^^  In  1697 
five  witches  had  been  burned  at  Paisley  for  enchanting  Miss  Shaw, 
daughter  of  the  laird  of  Bargarran,  and  there  were  other  sporadic 
cases  later.  That  versatile  turncoat,  Sir  James  Stewart,  while  Lord 
Advocate,  was  a  great  prosecutor  of  witches. 

Witch-dreading  Galloway  was  thus  not  much  behind  the  age, 
except  in  daring  defence  of  the  Covenant  and  denunciation  of 
Erastian  encroachments.  His  Presbytery  not  going  far  enough  for 
him  in  that  way,  MacMillan  contemned  and  was  deposed  by  it 
at  the  end  of  1703.  He  then  tried  to  ally  himself  with  Mr 
Hepburn,  an  older  minister  of  opinions  like  his  own,  whose  atti- 
tude was  not  precisely  that  of  a  separatist,  but  rather  of  a 
vox  clamatitis  in  eremo  ecclesice.  His  conduct,  later,  at  the  head 
of  armed  parishioners  in  the  Rising  of  17 15,  was  ambiguous, 
and  savoured  of  Jacobitism.  MacMillan  now  dallied  with  the 
Cameronians,  but  in  June  1704  formally  "acknowledged  his 
great  sin  in  deserting  the  Presbytery  of  Kirkcudbright,"  and 
promised  to  "  live  in  subjection  to  the  judicatories  of  the  Church," 
admitting  that  his  conduct  had  been  "contrary  to  my  ordination 
engagements."  The  Commission  of  the  General  Assembly,  how- 
ever, did  not  reinstate  him  in  Balmaghie,  and  he  made  his  peace 
with  the  Cameronians,  confessing  that  he  "had  displeased  the 
Godly  Remnant  and  greatly  offended  them"  (1706). 

He  appears  to  have  been  ready  to  submit  to  any  sect  or  church 
that  could  keep  him  in  his  manse  at  Balmaghie,  and  this  his 
parishioners,  backed  by  the  Cameronian  armed  societies,  were  able 
to  do,  as  the  civil  power  did  not  wish  to  repeat  the  method  of 
Bothwell  Bridge  in  the  case  of  a  single  preacher.  As  we  have 
shown,  Ker  of  Kersland  professes  to  have  led  the  societies  in  the 
direction  of  Jacobitism  at  this  date  (i 707-1 708).  On  May  3, 
1708,  a  minute  of  the  societies  appoints  men  to  inspect  their  arms 
and  ammunition,    "and  the  same   to   be  kept  private   till   further 

VOL.  IV.  L 


l62  THE   DAY   OF  AUCHENSAUGH   (171 2). 

allowance  and  necessity."  A  conference  was  arranged  between 
Hepburn's  followers  and  a  committee  of  which  MacMillan  was  a 
member. 

In  MacMillan,  when  he  came  over  to  them,  the  Cameronians 
had  at  last  an  ordained  minister,  and  could  prepare  to  renew  the 
Covenants  at  one  of  their  great  conventicles  for  the  celebration  of 
the  communion  (17 12).  Wishart,  Knox,  and  others  had  celebrated 
without  having  any  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of  Presbyterial 
hands,  but  the  Cameronians  were  firm  on  this  point.  A  common 
was  chosen  as  a  place  of  rendezvous,  and  all  slashing  communicants 
were  told  to  "  have  their  arms  in  readiness,"  as  if  Claverhouse  were 
likely  to  come  over  the  brae.  But  the  civil  authorities  were  too 
sensible  to  interfere,  and  no  muskets  were  brought  to  the  Table 
of  the  Lord.  On  July  23-27,  17 12,  the  services  were  held  at 
Auchensaugh,  and  MacMillan,  returning  to  the  defiant  method 
of  Cargill,  "  debarred  and  excommunicated  from  this  Holy  Table 
of  the  Lord  the  Queen  and  Parliament,  and  all  under  them  who 
spread  and  propagate  a  false  and  superstitious  worship,  .  .  .  such 
particularly  as  are  takers  of  the  Oath  of  Abjuration.   .   .    ." 

This  was  by  some  regarded  as  a  lovable  example  of  "  spiritual 
independence  " ;  to  others  it  seemed  as  if  the  devil  had  entered  into 
the  Vicar  of  Bray.  Such  was  the  great  "day  of  Auchensaugh." 
"  There  was  a  very  extraordinary  rain  the  whole  time  of  the  action," 
says  Wodrow.  Nothing  came  of  MacMillan's  demonstration  :  he 
was  not  chased  by  dragoons ;  his  performance  was  overlooked  by 
the  State. 

Though  the  Cameronians  were  professedly  "a  peculiar  people," 
they  were  not  peculiar  in  their  dislike  of  the  Union.  It  would 
have  been  difficult  to  find  a  class,  or  even  a  set  of  persons,  from 
the  Galloway  cotter  to  the  almost  royal  Duke  of  Hamilton,  who 
had  not  their  grievances — commercial,  religious,  social,  or  political 
— against  the  Union.  As  for  the  Duke, — Duke  of  Brandon  in  the 
peerage  of  England, — he  claimed,  qua  English  peer,  his  right  to  a 
seat  in  the  House  of  Lords,  The  English  Lords  resisted.  The 
sixteen  elected  representatives  of  the  Scottish  peers  were,  they 
said,  at  least  cnougli.  Of  course  there  was  now  neither  Scot  nor 
Englishman — all  were  British  ;  but  this  fact  was  perpetually  over- 
looked. The  Court  resented  the  English  Lords'  vote,  and  created 
a  batch  of  a  dozen  new  peers, — a  very  remarkable  and  important 
precedent.     Then  came  the  attempt  to  help  a  Treasury,  weakened 


REPEAL   DEBATED.  1 63 

in  the  long  war  about  to  be  ended  at  the  peace  of  Utrecht,  by 
extending  to  Scottish  malt  the  tax  hitherto  imposed  only  on  the 
malt  of  England.  The  Scots  denounced  this  as  a  fresh  infraction 
of  the  Treaty  of  Union  :  the  tax  was  for  military  expenses.  The 
Scottish  people  would  be  robbed  of  their  modest  "  tippenny  ale," 
the  lairds  of  their  rents  in  kind,  the  brewers  of  their  profits.  But 
the  tax  was  passed,  with  scarcely  an  English  vote  on  the  side  of 
Scotland. 

Moved  by  this  oppressive  malt  tax,  Lockhart  attempted  to  pro- 
cure a  universal  demand  by  Scottish  members  and  peers  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Union.  Harley  (now  Oxford)  remonstrated  with 
Lockhart,  who  thought  that  he  (Harley)  was  driving  too  far  and 
too  fast,  "and  would  bring  down  an  old  house  about  our  ears." 
Lockhart  defied  the  royal  resentment,  which  was  threatened,  and 
told  Bromley,  the  Speaker,  that  England  would  yet  have  "  to  pay 
the  pyper "  for  the  malt  tax  :  the  Scots  would  unite  in  helping 
any  ambitious  prince  to  subvert  the  constitution.  Bromley,  how- 
ever, showed  that  he  well  understood  the  case.  The  Scots  were 
disunited,  and,  in  fact,  much  as  they  all  hated  the  Union,  the 
awful  terror  of  Popery  would  for  ever  prevent  the  majority  from 
whatever  policy  might  tend  to  restore  their  rightful  king.  A 
meeting  of  Scots  Peers  and  Commons  was  held,  and  even  Argyll 
admitted  that  he  now  regarded  the  Union  "as  destructive  both 
to  Scotland  and  England." 

To  Lockhart,  in  private,  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  had  often  ex- 
pressed his  regret  that  he  had  taken  part  in  carrying  the  Treaty 
of  Union,  and  Lockhart  believed  him  to  be  sincere.  There  could 
be  no  better  proof  of  the  universal  sense  of  the  failure  of  the 
Union  which  then  prevailed  among  Scots ;  and  yet,  had  the 
question  of  repeal  been  placed  before  them  as  a  practical  issue, 
they  would  have  preferred  their  present  evils  to  that  condition  of 
imminent  war  and  commercial  extinction  which  had  menaced 
their  country  before  1707.  The  Duke  spoke  at  the  meeting  of 
Scots  in  London  in  favour  of  first  introducing  a  Bill  to  repeal 
the  Union,  and  consulting  as  to  further  measures  if  that  failed. 
It  was  suspected  that  he  intended  "  to  break  an  egg  in  the  Earl 
of  Mar's  pocket."  However  that  might  be,  Mar  warmly  seconded 
the  motion.  The  Whigs  present  feared  that  the  results  might  be 
favourable  to  the  exiled  king,  but  the  Union  was  so  unpopular  in 
Scotland  that  the  meeting  of  Scots  members  was  unanimous.     The 


164  ARGYLL   IN    FAVOUR   OF   REPEAL. 

party  could  throw  their  weight  on  the  side  either  of  the  Ministry 
or  the  Whigs,  and  thus  make  what  profit  they  might.  Lockhart, 
Argyll,  Mar,  and  young  Ormiston,  two  Peers,  two  Commoners,  one 
Tory,  and  one  Whig,  went  to  see  the  queen  :  they  were  selected 
in  proof  of  the  unanimity  of  the  Scots.  The  queen  expressed  a 
regret  that  the  Scots  were  dissatisfied,  and  her  hope  that  they 
would  not  have  cause  to  repent  their  action. 

By  Lockhart's  advice  the  Bill  for  repeal  of  the  Union  was  pro- 
posed in  the  Upper  House,  where,  as  he  truly  predicted,  they 
might  "run  it  near"  and  make  a  close  contest.  The  Earl  of 
Findlater,  Chancellor  of  Scotland,  and  in  1707  a  great  promoter 
of  the  Union  (whereby  he  had  become  very  unpopular),  was  to 
make  the  motion.  The  Whigs,  of  course,  were  profuse  in  promises 
to  the  Scots,  which  nobody  expected  them  to  keep  when  once,  by 
Scottish  aid,  they  had  ousted  the  Tories.  Findlater  made  his 
motion  with  conspicuous  uneasiness,  abounded  in  apologetic  phrases, 
and  did  not  conceal  his  want  of  the  grace  of  earnestness.  The 
fiery  Argyll  supplied  what  Findlater  lacked.  The  Union,  he  said, 
"would  beggar  Scotland  and  enslave  England."  As  a  landowner 
in  both  countries  he  expected  to  lose  his  property  in  the  one  and 
his  liberty  in  the  other.  The  Union,  far  from  being  a  safeguard 
against  Jacobitism,  said  Argyll,  made  new  friends  for  the  Chevalier 
de  St  George,  against  whom  he  spoke  with  a  bitterness  which  dis- 
proved that  part  of  his  own  case.  The  Whigs  had  information,  or 
suspected — what  was  obvious  enough — that  many  Scots  peers  were 
merely  making,  in  this  attack  on  the  Union,  a  bid  for  popularity 
among  their  discontented  countrymen,  and  desired  nothing  less 
than  to  break  the  measure  which  they  had  helped  to  make.  The 
English  peers  did  not  exert  themselves  in  debate,  so  the  Bill  was 
lost  by  but  a  narrow  majority,  and  the  earnest  anti-Unionists  told 
themselves  that  they  had  carried  their  point — namely,  that  a  motion 
for  repeal  was  a  motion  that  might  legitimately  be  made.'^ 

Argyll  did  not  sign  a  protest  to  which  his  brother,  Islay,  put 
his  name.  The  Scots  spoke  of  agitation  at  home,  of  petitions 
against  the  Union  from  the  constituencies, — but  this  plan  failed, 
and,  in  fact,  while  Scotland  tingled  with  irritation,  the  Union  was 
obviously  regarded  as  the  least  evil  choice  before  the  country.  It 
had  always  been  so.  The  mere  existence  of  a  Catholic  claimant 
of  the  crown  was  enough  to  win  national  assent  for  any  alternative, 
however  humiliating  and  annoying. 


THE   MINISTRY   AND   THE    RESTORATION    (17 13-17  14).       165 

In  summer,  17 13,  a  new  Parliament  was  summoned.  But  it 
was  clear  lo  friend  and  foe  that  the  leaders  of  the  Government, 
Bolingbroke  and  Harlcy,  were  irreconcilable.  Harley  had  gone 
some  way — how  far  is  not  exactly  known — towards  a  scheme  of 
restoring  James,  but  he  always  wavered  and  shuddered  away  from 
the  brink  of  action.  Bolingbroke  had  gone  rather  further ;  and  it 
seems  probable,  as  Bolingbroke  says  in  his  cups  in  '  Esmond,'  that 
Swift  would  have  accepted  a  mitre  from  la  bonne  cause.  But 
Bolingbroke  expected  James  to  turn  Protestant — a  foolish  dream  of 
an  unscrupulous  man.  Probably  something  was  lost  for  Jacobitism 
by  the  death  of  Hamilton  in  17 12,  when  he  was  on  the  point  of 
supplanting  Mat  Prior  as  Ambassador  to  France.  What  was  expected 
from  Hamilton  by  the  Jacobites  if  he  had  lived  and  gone  to  France 
as  Ambassador,  what  Bolingbroke  looked  for  at  Hamilton's  hands 
on  this  occasion,  is  not  very  clear.  The  conjecture  may  be  made 
that  Hamilton  was  to  overcome  James's  objections  to  changing  his 
faith,  and  was  to  smuggle  him  into  England,  where  he  could  be 
produced,  at  the  queen's  side,  as  a  Protestant,  and  as  his  sister's 
successor  on  the  throne.  Though  Bolingbroke  had  committed 
himself  by  trafficking  with  Saint  Germains,  had  compromised  himself 
in  case  the  Elector  of  Hanover  came  to  the  English  throne,  he 
knew  too  much  to  suppose  that  the  country  would  accept  James 
if  he  remained  a  Catholic.  "  A  man  without  honour  and  without 
religion,"  as  a  contemporary  canon  of  Christchurch  describes  Boling- 
broke, he  could  not  bring  himself  to  believe  that  James  was  both 
religious  and  honourable ;  he  never  ceased  to  believe  that,  for  three 
crowns,  the  king  would  change  his  creed ;  he  worked  to  that  end 
when  an  exile  in  France  :  meanwhile  he  drank  and  made  love  as 
if  Queen  Anne  were  immortal. 

On  the  eve  of  Hamilton's  intended  start  to  France,  Lockhart 
had  a  long  conversation  with  the  Duke.  Hamilton  was  extremely 
cautious,  but  he  hinted  that  there  was  ground  for  hope.  Some- 
thing was  in  view  for  la  bonne  cause ;  very  important  matters  were 
to  be  touched  upon  in  addition  to  the  ratification  of  peace. 
Cavaliers  were  "  to  look  for  the  best."  We  know  what  "  the  best " 
was.  The  Duke  had  never  undertaken  any  journey  with  so  much 
pleasure :  his  orders  he  would  carry  out,  "  be  the  consequences 
what  they  will." 

One  secret  he  confided  to  Lockhart  in  the  strictest  privacy, — 
Lockhart    must    send    to    him    in    France  a   person   in   whom   he 


1 66  MYSTERIOUS   PLANS   OF  HAMILTON   (17  12). 

could  absolutely  confide,  and  then  be  ready  to  meet  the  Duke 
"in  whatever  part  of  the  world  he  directed  me  to  meet  him." 
The  person  needed  by  Hamilton  for  his  mysterious  purpose  was 
"  a  clever  young  honest  fellow " ;  Lockhart  suggested  Sir  John 
Houstoun  or  Sir  James  Hamilton.  Lockhart  then  parted  from 
the  Duke  "  with  a  more  than  usual  concern, — I  don't  know  from 
what  secret  impression  on  my  mind." 

From  Scotland  he  was  summoned  by  the  Duke  to  renew  and 
continue  their  late  mysterious  conversation.  But  on  Lockhart's 
way  south  he  heard  of  the  fatal  duel  in  which  the  Duke  fell.  It 
may  be  conjectured  that  the  young  gentleman  who  was  to  join 
Hamilton  in  London  before  his  journey  (for  that  was  the  final 
decision)  would  appear  to  return  in  his  suite,  but  would  prove  to 
be  no  Hamilton  or  Houstoun,  but  a  Stuart — namely,  the  king — • 
won  over  to  Protestantism  by  the  eloquence  of  his  Grace,  and, 
as  a  brother  and  a  good  churchman,  to  be  secretly  presented  to, 
and  then  publicly  recognised  by.  Queen  Anne.  The  passage  in 
Lockhart  may  have  suggested  the  Esmond-Castlewood  plot  to 
Thackeray  :  indeed  the  idea  had  always  been  present  to  Jacobite 
minds.^^     But  Dis  aliter  visum. 

The  Duke  had  a  lawsuit  pending  with  the  profligate  and  murder- 
ous Lord  Mohun,  and  a  quarrel,  which  was  deliberately  forced  on 
him  for  party  purposes  by  Mohun,  or  accidental,  occurred  at  a 
meeting  between  the  men.  Mohun  was  the  challenger,  a  man  with 
no  character  to  lose,  and  the  Duke  did  not  balk  him.  They  met 
in  Hyde  Park,  and,  according  to  Lockhart,  Mohun  proposed  that 
his  second.  Macartney,  and  the  Duke's,  a  Colonel  Hamilton,  should 
merely  look  on,  and  not  "join  in  the  dance," — a  practice  then  usual, 
as  in  the  Valois  Court,  more  than  a  century  earlier.  The  Duke, 
unhappily,  was  of  the  opposite  opinion.  The  Colonel  fought  and 
disarmed  Macartney,  and,  looking  about,  saw  the  Duke  and  Mohun 
both  fallen.  He  lifted  the  Duke,  and  was  carrying  him — for  a  wound 
in  the  thigh  prevented  him  from  walking — when  Macartney  picked 
up  a  sword  and  mortally  stabbed  the  Duke  from  behind.  This 
was  the  Colonel's  story.  Macartney  was  smuggled  out  of  the 
country  by  the  grateful  Whigs.  Why  did  not  the  Colonel,  a  brave 
man,  seize  Macartney  at  the  moment  of  his  crime?  lie  accounted 
for  that  by  the  condition  of  the  Duke,  and  by  his  own  loss  of 
presence  of  mind.  The  Whigs,  after  the  arrival  of  George  L, 
"carried  Macartney  through  the  trial," — for  he  returned,  when  his 


HAMILTON'S   FATAL   DUEL   (171 2).  167 

party  was  triumphant,  and  faced  the  law.  His  acquittal,  his  party 
being  in  power,  was  certain.  Dr  Garth  was  heard  by  Lockhart  to 
say  that  Mohun,  mortally  wounded  by  the  Duke,  could  not  possibly 
have  inflicted  on  the  Duke  the  fatal  thrust,  from  the  collar-bone 
downwards,  as,  by  the  evidence  of  an  eyewitness,  the  pair  never 
came  to  sufficiently  close  quarters  for  such  a  thrust,  Mohun  always 
breaking  ground  as  the  Duke  advanced.  The  Duke's  wound  was 
three-cornered,  from  a  bayonet-edged  small  sword,  then  a  novelty 
(see  Frank  Osbaldistone's  duel  with  Rashleigh  in  '  Rob  Roy '),  and 
the  only  man  of  the  four  on  the  sod  who  carried  a  sword  of  this 
kind  was — Colonel  Hamilton,  He  had  dropped  his  sword  when 
he  lifted  the  Duke,  and  Macartney  seized  it  and  committed  the 
murder.  Thus,  to  give  Lockhart's  summing  up  of  the  evidence, 
"  There's  too  much  ground  to  believe  the  Whigs  are  a  set  of  men 
who  stand  at  nothing  to  accomplish  their  own  ends."  ^^ 

"Thus  doth  fortune  banter  us,"  says  Bolingbroke.  A  good  plot 
was  wrecked  by  Macartney's  villainy. 

In  the  new  Parliament  of  17 14  the  serious  Tories,  friends  of  a 
Restoration,  were  "a  much  more  united  hearty  set  of  men  "  than 
in  the  last,  but  Bolingbroke  and  Oxford  were  almost  at  daggers 
drawn.  "We  had  not  time  enough  for  what  we  had  to  do," 
Swift  wrote  to  Bolingbroke  after  all  was  over ;  and  what  they  had 
to  do  is  obvious  enough.  In  February  17 14  Oxford  dictated  a 
letter  to  Gualtier,  informing  James  that,  if  he  would  succeed,  he 
must  change  his  religion.  To  induce  him  to  change,  as  we  think, 
was  probably  Hamilton's  important  duty.  Here,  for  oncej  Boling- 
broke agreed,  at  this  time,  with  his  colleague.  The  king  replied, 
unlike  his  ancestors  Henri  IV.  and  Charles  II.  (a  crypto-Catholic), 
as  became  a  gentleman  and  an  honest  man.  He  had  been  com- 
pelled to  leave  France  for  Lorraine ;  his  means  of  livelihood  were 
unapparent,  as  he  remarks  in  a  letter,  but  he  would  neither  barter 
his  Mass  for  three  crowns  nor  even,  as  his  English  friends  de- 
sired, leave  any  shadow  of  doubt  on  his  fidelity  to  his  faitii.  On 
March  1 3,  with  obvious  reference  to  Harley's  letter  through  Gualtier, 
the  king  replied,  "  I  remain  unalterable  in  my  fixed  resolution  of 
never  dissembling  my  religion,  but  rather  to  abandon  all  than  act 
against  my  conscience  and  honour,  cost  what  it  will."  He  argued 
that  his  adherents  could  not  rely  on  him  if,  to  please  them,  he 
played  the  hypocrite, — "  Where  is  the  man  of  honour  that  would 
trust   me  ?    .    .    .    My  present  sincerity,   at  a   time  when   it   may 


l68      JAMES'S   HONOUR — BOLINGBROKE'S  INTRIGUES   (1714). 

cost  me  so  dear,  ought  to  be  a  sufficient  earnest  to  my  subjects 
of  my  religious  observance  of  whatsoever  I  promise  them ;  for  I 
can  say  with  truth  that  I  heartily  abhor  all  dissimulation  and  double 
dealing.    .    .    ."  ^^ 

James's  reasoning  was  as  logical  as  his  intentions  were  sincere. 
Though  a  Stuart,  he  was  a  man  of  his  word ;  but  how  could  his 
friends,  anxious  to  welcome  him  as  an  impious  dissembler,  believe 
that  they  were  dealing  with  a  man  of  honour?  History  and  ex- 
perience hardly  warranted  the  belief  that  a  prince  could  be  a 
Catholic  yet  no  bigot,  and  could  make  promises  which  he  would 
not  forswear.  James's  manifesto  merely  saddened  his  party :  he 
was,  and  is,  accused  of  "  bigotry,"  when  honesty  was  his  crime,  and 
Bolingbroke,  to  the  last,  expected  him  to  change  his  mind  and  take 
three  crowns  in  compensation  for  a  falsehood  before  God  and  man. 
As  late  as  August  17 14  Gualtier  informed  Torcy  that  Bolingbroke 
avowed  his  loyalty  to  James,  "  if  he  will  take  such  measures  as  suit 
the  honest  party  in  England."  ^'^  This  must  have  meant  that  Boling- 
broke would  stand  by  James  if  he  changed  or  dissembled  his  religion. 

His  honour  and  his  honesty  were  the  best  points  in  the  character 
of  the  Chevalier.  Writing  privately  to  his  son.  Prince  Charles,  in 
1745,  he  severely  rebuked  certain  duplicities  which  the  prince  had 
rather  thought  matters  of  self-congratulation.  They  were  unworthy, 
said  the  father,  of  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian.  Though  educated 
under  a  most  devout  mother,  James  had  no  small  bigotries :  he 
wished  toleration  for  himself,  and  was  heartily  ready  to  extend  it 
to  his  subjects.  When  he  had  a  son,  he  gave  him  a  Protestant 
governor, — with  the  result  that  in  1745  the  prince's  religion  was 
"  to  seek,"  as  one  of  his  followers,  Lord  Elcho,  remarked.  Of 
personal  courage  he  had  given  undeniable  proof  at  Malplaquet 
(1709),  according  to  the  Duke  of  Berwick,  Dangeau,  Saint-Simon,  and 
Boufflers,  who,  in  despatches  to  Louis  XIV.,  said  that  he  displayed 
the  utmost  valour.-^  He  is  said  to  have  taken  part  in  twelve 
cavalry  charges,  and  to  have  received  a  sabre  wound.  He  was  an 
affectionate  son,  brother,  and  father.  Why  Thackeray  accuses  him 
of  intemperance  is  a  mystery,  and  the  only  mistress  whom  legend 
mentions  in  connection  with  him  (at  Bar  in  Lorraine,  17 14)  was 
certainly  not   Fanny  Oglethorpe.*      His  manner  appears   to   have 

*  Mr  Henry  Wolff  .-ippcars  to  rely  on  local  tradition  at  T)ar  for  the  particulars. 
There  are  curious  errors  in  his  essay,  "The  I'retender  at  Uar-le-Duc,"  in  'Odd 
Bits  of  History'  (1894). 


VIRTUES   AND   DEFECTS   OF  JAMES.  169 

been  shy  or  stiff, — the  result,  very  probably,  of  his  insecure  posi- 
tion, which,  with  his  poverty,  exposed  him  to  some  humiliations. 
His  mother  wrote  :  "  It  was  true  that  the  princess  [his  young  sister, 
Louisa],  with  her  engaging  air  and  agreeable  caressing  manners, 
pleased  better  than  did  tlie  king,  her  brother,  who  was  too  cold. 
Lord  Perth  had  often  told  him,  when  he  was  a  boy,  that  he  ought 
to  obtain  by  study  the  affability  which  his  sister  had  by  nature."  ^2 

Nefaict  ce  tour  qui  veult. 

James  had  a  heart  full  of  affection  :  two  or  three  times  in  his 
letters  he  speaks  out.  But  his  manner  was  unpopular,  and  his 
reserve  was  very  close.  Had  he  been  a  Protestant,  James  would 
probably  have  made  a  most  respectable  king,  but  his  creed  was 
a  fatal  obstacle ;  and  he  had  not  the  charm  which  endless  audacity, 
and  uncomplaining  good -humour  in  extreme  hardships,  lent  to 
his  unfortunate  eldest  son.  In  person  he  was  tall  and  slim,  with 
eyes  curiously  like  those  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  which  gave 
him  in  boyhood  a  pleasant  roguish  air.  But  his  constitutional 
melancholy  soon  betrayed  itself  in  his  expression.  The  Whig 
pamphleteers  accused  him  of  a  coldness  towards  the  fair  sex  which 
amounted  to  positive  cruelty,  while  his  melancholy  was  such  that 
"if  you  tell  him  it  is  a  fine  day,  he  weeps  and  says  that  he  was 
unfortunate  from  his  mother's  womb."^^  Considerable  experience 
of  the  fickle  friendships  of  politicians,  of  protestations  which  ended 
in  desertions,  and  the  knowledge  that  his  patrons  of  France  re- 
garded him  merely  as  a  piece  in  the  game  of  diplomatic  chess, 
were  not  apt  to  produce  a  cheerful  habit  of  mind. 

Such  was  the  prince,  as  far  as  we  can  discern  his  character,  for 
whom  Scotland  was  to  suffer  many  sorrows.  Nobody  could  be 
less  like  the  young  Charles  II. — audacious,  gay,  and  prepared  to 
swallow  all  religious  and  political  formulas,  from  the  Covenant  to 
endless  Presbyterian  sermons.  The  Jacobite  songs  celebrated 
"  Young  Jamie  the  Rover " :  a  more  roving  blade  would  have  had 
happier  fortunes. 

In  England,  Lockhart  and  the  Jacobites  spoke  plainly  to  Boling- 
broke.  Why  had  he  not  "purged  the  army  of  men  of  dangerous 
principles  " — that  is,  Whigs.  Bolingbroke  threw  the  blame  on  Oxford, 
whom  he  hoped  soon  to  remove  from  the  councils  of  Queen  Anne. 
Lockhart  gave  his  mind  to  Bolingbroke  :  his  party  would  now  run 
its  own  course,  but,  on  sounding  his  party,  he  found  it  half-hearted, 
and  determined  to  temporise.     Bolingbroke,  in  fact,  had  captured 


I70  A   PRICE   SET   ON   JAMES'S   HEAD   (17 14). 

the  leading  Jacobites  among  the  Scottish  members.  In  domestic 
affairs  Lockhart,  Mar,  and  others  desired  to  resume  the  old  Epis- 
copal revenues  as  a  fund  for  the  clergy  of  their  own  Church  ;  but 
Lockhart  distrusted  the  sincerity  with  which  the  English  ministry 
might  appear  to  come  into  this  unhopeful  plan.  Moreover,  the 
universities  had  part  of  the  revenues,  and  Lockhart,  regarding  the 
universities  as  mere  seminaries  of  sedition,  meant  to  take  the 
money  away  from  them.  Findlater  and  Orkney  persuaded  the 
queen  that  the  measure  would  cause  a  rebellion,  which  seems 
probable  enough.  The  queen  desired  that  the  Bill  should  be 
dropped.  Another  Bill,  for  a  Commission  to  inquire  into  the 
revenues  once  Episcopal,  died  a  natural  death,  as  did  the  Bill 
for  taxing  Scottish  malt,  which,  at  least,  lay  dormant  for  ten  years. 
The  affair  of  the  Church  revenues  shows  that  Lockhart  greatly 
underestimated  the  power  of  the  Presbyterians,  whom  he  despised 
and  detested.  In  conjunction  with  Argyll,  Lockhart  played  a  very 
modern  trick  by  snatching  a  division  on  a  Militia  Bill  for  Scotland 
in  a  thin  House,  while  messengers  scoured  the  town  in  search  of 
voters  of  the  Ministerial  party. 

At  this  moment  Lord  Grange,  the  Hon.  James  Erskine,  brother 
of  Mar,  best  remembered  as  the  husband  of  Lady  Grange,  made 
an  amazing  proposal  for  an  oath  obliging  magistrates,  ministers, 
and  all  people  in  office,  to  abjure  the  Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant. Grange  was  supposed  to  have  meant  by  this  step  to  re- 
vive old  Whig  sentiment  to  the  pitch  of  insurrection,  in  collusion 
with  the  Presbyterian  leaders.  Lockhart,  not  at  the  time  per- 
ceiving Grange's  motive,  later  learned  that  he  was  entertaining 
these  wonderfully  tortuous  schemes.  With  equal  unscrupulousness, 
probably,  a  proclamation  by  queen  and  council  of  a  reward  of 
^5000  for  the  Chevalier  de  St  George,  dead  or  alive,  was  issued. 
This  can  only  have  been  intended  to  disguise  Bolingbroke's  real 
purpose,  but  it  was  a  dangerous  way  of  backing  his  friend. 
Ijolingbroke,  with  many  though  vague  promises,  now  prevailed 
on  Lockhart  and  his  party  to  vote  with  the  Ministry,  and  allow 
business  to  be  finished  and  Parliament  prorogued.  And  then  the 
great  day  would  come,  and  the  queen  would  be  able  to  secure  her 
brother's  succession. 

On  July  27,  1 714,  Anne  dismissed  Oxford  from  office,  and 
Bolingbrokc  was  all-[)owcrlul  with  her.  On  August  i  the  queen 
died ;  but  Shrewsbury  and  Argyll,  with  a  happy  audacity,  took  their 


DEATH   OF   ANNE — ACCESSION    OF   GEORGE   I.    (17  14.)       IJT 

measures  so  promptly  and  well,  and  Bolingbroke  so  entirely  gave 
way  to  timidity,  that  "  the  best  cause  in  Europe  was  lost,"  as 
Atterbury  cried,  "for  want  of  spirit."  George  I.  was  proclaimed, 
and  the  efifigy  of  James  III.  was  dragged  about  the  streets  and 
burned.  He  never  would,  in  any  case,  have  been  restored  as  a 
permanence  ;  but  Argyll  probably  prevented,  by  his  decision,  the 
terrible  civil  war  which  would  have  broken  out  had  Bolingbroke 
shown  more  resolution.  His  conduct,  as  regards  James  and  his 
restoration,  was  imbecile.  He  drifted  into  the  dangers  which 
caused  his  fall  and  exile  with  no  policy  at  all.  The  Duke  of 
Berwick,  James's  half-brother,  was  at  this  time  (17 12-17 15)  his 
mentor,  and  was  in  touch  with  Harley  through  d'Imberville  and 
the  Abbe  Gualtier  at  the  Court  of  Queen  Anne.  Berwick's  letters 
to  James,  who  was  at  Bar  in  Lorraine,  have  been  published  in  the 
first  volume  of  the  Stuart  Papers  at  Windsor  Castle.^*  A  number 
of  other  despatches,  from  the  French  Archives,  are  given  in  Pro- 
fessor Solomon's  'History  of  Queen  Anne's  Last  Ministry'  (1894). 
They  all  prove  the  ineptitude  of  Bolingbroke,  a  brilliant  man  of 
the  world  and  of  letters,  but  futile  as  a  statesman. 

A  year  before  the  queen's  death  Berwick  writes  to  James,  "  The 
chief  point  is  to  get  Oxford  to  speak  plain,  for  fear  of  Queen 
Anne's  breaking  [dying]  before  he  can  pay  his  debts."  ^^  Again 
(Dec.  24,  1 7 13),  "I  cannot  imagine  that  a  man  of  Oxford's 
sense,  foreseeing  himself  undone  in  case  of  Queen  Anne's  mis- 
carriage, should  not  think  and  imagine  something  to  secure 
himself."-^  Oxford  had  "something  to  secure  himself"  Among 
other  things,  he  had  a  letter  which  would  be  fatal  to  Marlborough. 
But  Bolingbroke,  more  deeply  implicated  than  Oxford,  had  no 
security,  nor  had  he  the  passive  courage  of  Oxford  :  he  dared  not 
face  the  storm.  Bolingbroke  "saw  clearly  that  unless  James 
changed  his  rehgion,  his  restoration  was  impossible."  -'^  He  knew 
that  James  would  not  change  his  religion.  Yet  he  lived  and 
revelled,  without  a  purpose,  without  foresight,  without  preparations. 
Pie  was  to  be,  for  a  brief  space,  James's  Minister,  with  the  inevit- 
able and  obvious  results. 


172  NOTES. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   VII, 

^  Lockhart,  i.  300,  301  ;  Burnet,  v.  403-409 ;  Parliamentary  History,  vi. 
794-798. 

-  Lockhart,  i.  312-317. 

^  The  right  reading  is  "bought,"  not  "fought,"  the  Scots,  as  in  Sir  Henry 
Craik's  '  Century  of  Scottish  History,'  i.  65.     Lockhart,  i.  327. 

*  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  i.  41. 

^  WodrovT,  Correspondence,  i.  79-81. 

^  The  Case  of  the  present  Afflicted  Clergy,  1690,  Burton,  viii.  218,  note. 

''  Lockhart,  i.  340-348. 

*  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  i.  91. 

^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  i.  138. 
^^  Blackwell's  Letters,  Spalding  Club  Miscellany,  i.  198. 
"  Lockhart,  i.  379,  380. 
'^  Diinlop,  Parochial  Law.     Third  Edition. 
^^  Parliamentary  History,  vi.  1127-1129. 
^''  Modern  Sadducism  :  London,  1695. 
^^  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  302. 

'®  Lockhart,  i.  428-436  ;  Parliamentary  History,  vi.  1215-1220. 
^^  Lockhart,  i.  40S-411, 
^8  Lockhart,  i.  401-410. 
"  Macpherson,  ii.  525,  526. 
20  Mahon,  History  of  England,  i.  88  :  1858. 
^^  Haile,  Mary  of  Modena,  p.  411  :  1905. 
^  Haile,  Mary  of  Modena,  p.  432. 
^  Hue  and  Cry  after  the  Pretender,  17 16. 
^  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission. 

'■^  Stuart  Papers,  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  i.  271. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  i.  287. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  i.,  p.  liv. 


173 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE    JACOBITE     RISING. 
1714-1715. 

In  the  event  of  the  failure  of  romantic  schemes  for  carrying  James, 
with  a  price  on  his  head,  to  England,  reconcihng  him  with  Queen 
Anne,  and  presenting  him  to  Parhament,  Berwick  had  thought  that 
the  king  should  hurry  to  Scotland  as  soon  as  the  queen  expired 
(Dec.  24,  17 13).  De  Torcy  promised  to  have  ships  in  readiness. 
It  was  then  expected  that  England  would  pay  the  dowry  of  Mary  of 
Modena,  and  the  money  would  be  used  for  the  invasion.^  But  the 
dowry  was  never  paid  :  seventy  years  later  it  was  asked  for  in  vain. 
Mary  had  sold  almost  all  her  jewels ;  money  was  vainly  hoped 
for  from  the  Pope;  the  gold  of  the  King  of  Spain  arrived  in 
December  17 15,  too  late  to  be  useful;  and  the  presents  given  by 
Marlborough  amounted  to  only  four  thousand  pounds.  Never  was 
there  a  more  hopeless  enterprise  than  the  Rising  of  1715.  High 
hopes  of  money  and  men  from  Charles  XII.  of  Sweden  arose,  and 
were  dashed  in  the  usual  style.  On  October  20,  17 14,  James  sent 
a  message  to  Scotland  which  clears  up  the  nature  of  his  position  at 
that  time.  On  October  4  he  had  sent  news  that  he  had  been  making 
all  diligence  to  appear  among  his  friends  when  he  heard  that  Atholl, 
whom  he  looked  on  as  the  head  of  his  party,  had  gone  to  pay  court 
to  George.  Breadalbane  had  induced  the  chiefs  of  the  great  clans 
to  send  to  Mar  a  letter  in  which  they  expressed  their  fidelity  and 
submission  to  the  Elector  of  Hanover.  No  doubt  James  was  well 
informed,  and  Mar,  though  pointedly  neglected  by  George,  forwarded 
the  letter  of  the  chiefs  whom  he  was  presently  to  lead  in  the  Rising 
of  1 715,  if  Mar  can  be  spoken  of  as  a  leader.  James  thought  that 
Mar's  present  step  was  only  intended  for  their  immediate  security. 


174  JACOBITE   PREPARATIONS  (17  14-17  15). 

but  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  speaking  for  the  Lowland  gentry, 
advised  him  not  to  stir.  Meanwhile  he  expressed  vague  hopes,  and 
a  resolution  to  break  "  the  shameful  Union."  ^  Late  in  November 
1 7 14  Berwick  advised  James  to  tell  his  friends  in  Scotland  that 
he  was  resolved  to  be  with  them,  accompanied  by  Berwick,  whose 
military  reputation  would  have  made  all  the  difference  to  his 
prestige.  At  the  moment  James  was  negotiating  with  adherents  in 
England,  "  without  which  little  good  is  to  be  expected."  Mean- 
while the  Scottish  Jacobites  must  keep  quiet,  and  avoid  exciting  the 
suspicions  of  the  Government,  as  some  tipsy  revellers  in  Edinburgh 
probably  failed  to  do  by  their  nocturnal  proclamations  of  King  James.^ 

The  chief  friend  in  England  was  the  Duke  of  Ormonde,  who 
■was  believed  to  have  great  influence  with  the  soldiery.  Ormonde, 
through  a  Mrs  Bagnal,  one  of  the  fair  intriguers  whose  name  was 
legion,  had  in  1713-1714  given  some  kind  of  pledge  to  James. 
On  January  i,  17 15,  Berwick  was  not  unhopeful  of  a  joint  effort 
by  his  uncle,  Marlborough,  and  the  Duke  of  Ormonde,  though  he 
might  have  known  his  uncle's  character  better.  He  had,  indeed, 
been  neglected  by  George  L,  and  he  had  sent  to  James  a  little  of 
his  savings,  but,  a  traitor  to  the  father,  he  would  not  risk  himself 
in  the  forlorn  cause  of  the  son.  On  January  6  Berwick  induced 
Lady  Jersey  {la  jolie)  to  engage  Bolingbroke  as  James's  agent  in 
England.  Though  Marlborough's  letters  contained  "  only  the  usual 
bantering  expressions,"  he  still  sent  small  sums  of  money  during  the 
summer  of  17 15,  and  the  best  use  was  made  of  them  in  paying  the 
crews  of  the  ships  which  had  been  secured. 

Meanwhile  Mar  was  in  correspondence  with  Glengarry  and  the 
Highland  chiefs  (February  i5[-26],  1715).^  He  congratulated 
them  on  the  seemliness  of  their  recent  behaviour,  and  was  employ- 
ing Campbell  of  Glendaruel,  by  no  means  a  gentleman  of  Hano- 
verian principles.  Mar,  who  had  been  Secretary  for  Scotland,  on 
August  30,  1 7 14,  sent  a  letter  of  humble  loyalty  to  George. 
Though  pointedly  neglected  by  that  prince,  he  was  "  his  most 
dutiful,  most  obedient  subject  and  servant."^  He  had  brought  the 
Highlands  to  make  a  protestation  of  their  allegiance,  and  he  hoped, 
vainly,  for  reward. 

Meanwhile  money  was  sent  to  Ormonde  in  England,  and,  on 
March  13,  1715,  James  appointed  him  Captain-General  in  the  three 
kingdoms.  His  commission  arrived  safely  in  April,  and  Berwick 
iiopcd  that  the  Duke  would  determine  to  "stand  butt"  {sic:  prob- 


JAMES   AND   THE    DUKE   OF   BERWICK   (1704-17 15).       1 75 

ably  "stand  buff")  "in  England  against  the  Elector." «  The 
Swedish  scheme  was  in  hand  (March- August  17 15),  and  only 
swelled  the  list  of  disappointments.  It  was  hoped  that  the  cele- 
brated Protestantism  of  Charles  XII.  would  pacify  anxious  minds 
in  England.  Dreams  of  exiles!  Berwick  (February  17,  17 15) 
thought  that  Ormonde  was  expecting  James  "to  carry  with  him 
that  able  lawyer,  M.  Alexandre,"  that  is,  an  army  of  invasion, 
which  was  impossible,  as  France  would  not  imperil  the  peace, 
though  ready  to  connive  at  private  enterprise." 

In  April,  James's  proposed  agent  in  England,  Bolingbroke,  arrived 
in  Paris  after  a  hasty  flight  from  London.  La  Jolie,  Lady  Jersey, 
was  now  "  of  no  use,  however  well-meaning."  **  Ormonde,  Berwick 
said,  would  have  to  care  for  his  own  preservation  :  it  was  hoped  that 
he  would  "  stand  buff,"  as  we  have  seen,  but,  as  he  would  not  dis- 
semble, and  distrusted  his  own  power  of  raising  the  west  against 
George,  he,  too,  some  months  later,  made  his  way  to  France.  Even 
before  this  collapse  of  hopes,  Berwick  (July  2)  found  that  the 
French  Court  would  not  permit  him,  a  field -marshal  of  France, 
to  accompany  James  in  his  little  invasion.^  Here  a  curious  point 
must  be  explained.  In  17 15  there  arose  a  fatal  breach  between 
James  and  that  great  soldier  and  good  man,  his  natural  brother, 
the  Duke  of  Berwick.  In  October  1704  Berwick,  with  the  per- 
mission of  James,  a  boy  of  fifteen,  was  naturalised  as  a  French 
subject,  and  became  a  Marechal  de  France.  As  such  he  must 
obey  the  ruler  of  France,  not  James ;  yet,  in  1 7 1 5,  James  displays 
a  seemingly  unreasonable  irritation  because  Berwick  obeys  the 
Regent  d'Orleans,  not  himself.  The  fact  is  that,  in  1704,  Lord 
Caryll,  acting  for  James,  consulted  an  English  lawyer,  Robert 
Power,  who  gave  the  opinion  that  Berwick's  naturalisation  in  no 
•way  relieved  him  of  his  inalienable  duty  to  King  James.  The 
documents  are  given  at  the  end  of  this  chapter.  Thus  James  re- 
mained convinced  that,  under  the  saving  clauses  of  his  permission 
to  Berwick  to  be  naturalised,  he  retained  Berwick's  allegiance,  when 
his  claim  clashed  with  that  of  France.  James  now  remonstrated 
with  the  Ministers  of  Louis  XIV.,  who  suggested  that  Berwick 
might  steal  away  after  James's  own  departure.  On  July  14  Berwick 
wrote  to  the  effect  that  it  was  now  or  never,  James  must  cross  the 
Channel.  Louis  XIV.  would  regret  the  missing  of  this  opportunity. 
Already  James  had  met  Bolingbroke  (who  thought  him  eager  but 
vague,  as  was  natural),  and  appointed  him  Minister. 


176  THE   FATAL  BLUNDERS  (1715). 

Now  we  come  to  the  very  crisis  of  the  enterprise,  the  main  cause 
of  all  the  ruin.  On  July  16  Berwick  wrote  to  James  saying  that 
"his  honour  was  at  stake,  his  friends  will  give  over  the  game  if 
they  think  him  backward,  as  no  doubt  they  will.  In  short,  no  delay 
must  come  from  his  side."^^  On  July  19  James  told  Bolingbroke 
that  he  had  good  news  from  Ormonde :  "  You  will  see  the  neces- 
sity of  losing  no  time."  On  the  same  day  Berwick  had  received 
the  "  good  news  "  which  James  had  sent  off  to  him,  through  Father 
Innes,  and  was  aware  that  James  was  to  start  on  July  28,  and  had 
appointed  the  Rising  for  August  10.  He  would  be  at  Dieppe  by 
July  30.  Berwick  asked  whether  August  10  was  Old  Style  or  New 
Style, — there  was  every  chance  of  fatal  confusion.  Moreover,  said 
Berwick,  they  ought  not  to  fix  a  day  without  hearing  more  certainly 
from  Ormonde.  James  was  acting,  we  shall  see,  on  news  from  a 
certain  Father  Callaghan,  not  evidential.  Now,  on  July  14  Berwick 
had  told  de  Torcy  that  James  must  act  at  once,  adding,  in  the  spirit 
of  prophecy,  that  otherwise  "  he  might  make  himself  Cardinal,  for 
he  would  never  be  king."  ^^  What  really  occurred  was  this  :  James, 
having  been  urged  by  Berwick  to  instant  action,  on  receiving  news 
from  Ormonde  through  Father  Callaghan,  did  act  on  it  at  once, 
without  waiting  to  consult  Berwick  and  Bolingbroke.  He  sent, 
about  July  15,  a  messenger  to  Mar  in  London,  fixing  August  10  for 
the  Rising,  and  Berwick  knew  this  by  July  19.  But  by  July  26 
James  had  received  a  memoir  from  Mar  and  Ormonde  of  a  tenor 
very  different  from  Callaghan's  message  from  Ormonde,  on  which  he 
had  acted  by  fixing  August  10.  This  Callaghan  was  a  Dominican, 
a  man  of  good  sense,  says  Berwick,  and  Berwick  admits  that  he 
did  come  from  Ormonde  with  the  message  to  start  at  once.  The 
initial  fault,  it  thus  seems,  was  with  Ormonde. ^^ 

James  may  well  have  been  puzzled  and  provoked.  Now  he  was- 
told  that  he  could  not  be  too  prompt,  and  again,  that  he  could 
not  be  too  cautious.  Was  he  so  incautious  and  so  furtive  as  to 
bid  Mar  raise  the  standard  without  communicating  his  action  to 
Bolingbroke  and  Berwick  ?  Berwick  says  ^^  that  Mar,  ifi  Sepfetnber, 
received  a  secret  order  from  James  to  go  to  Scotland  at  once  and 
take  up  arms.  "  Neither  Bolingbroke  nor  I  knew  anything  of  this, 
though  we  were  the  king's  chief  Ministers."  But  Mar  went,  it  is 
known,  to  a  levee  of  George  I.  on  August  i  :  he  retired  to  Scotland 
on  August  2,  he  held  a  large  gathering  of  chiefs  on  August  27,  and 
raised  the  standard  on  September  6.     All  this  cannot  have  been 


CROSS   NEWS  (17  1 5).  177 

done  in  obedience  to  a  secret  order  of  James  received  in  September ! 
Now,  after  he  had  raised  the  standard,  Mar  produced  a  commission 
from  James  dated  September  7,  and  with  a  blank  for  the  names 
of  his  Council,  "not  to  be  filled  up,"  he  said,  "unless  there  be  an 
absolute  necessity  for  it."^*  Such  a  commission,  of  September  7, 
did  not  prompt  Mar's  measures  of  August  2-September  6.  On 
September  23  James  wrote  to  Bolingbroke  hoping  that  the  Scots 
would  wait  for  a  despatch  from  himself.  It  is  suggested  that  he 
merely  meant  to  deceive  Bolingbroke ;  ^^  but  we  need  not  resort  to 
so  deplorable  a  theory  merely  on  the  evidence,  certainly  erroneous, 
of  Berwick's  Memoirs.  Nobody  ever  knew  what  commission,  if 
any.  Mar  had  from  James  before  that  of  September  7,  which  was 
partly  in  blank  until  circumstances  required  it  to  be  filled  up.^** 
If  news  reached  Mar  in  July  (not  in  September,  as  Berwick  says) 
that  James  was  to  be  at  Dieppe  on  July  30,  and  that  he  had  fixed 
August  10,  and  that  message  zvas  sent,  certainly  Berwick  blundered 
in  his  dates.  Memoirs  are  most  untrustworthy  sources,  but  James's 
character  suffers  for  Berwick's  misstatement. 

The  haste  of  James,  in  the  circumstances  described  and  under  the 
urgency  of  Berwick,  was  natural  but  mistaken.  But  by  July  26 
he  had,  as  we  know,  a  new  despatch,  from  Mar  and  Ormonde,  of 
July  5-16, — a  paper  showing  that  Ormonde  and  Mar  saw  nothing 
but  difficulties  in  the  enterprise  which  Berwick  was  then  urging 
James  to  undertake  instantly.  There  was  no  chance  of  success, 
English  Jacobites  were  unanimous  in  holding,  unless  the  king 
came  with  a  regular  army.  In  a  month  or  six  weeks  George 
could  put  32,000  good  troops  in  the  field.  If  James  meant  to 
come  with  no  army  and  risk  all,  he  should  arrive  at  the  beginning 
of  October,  and  a  choice  of  places — at  Holy  Island,  at  Alnwick,  in 
Forfar,  or  near  Aberdeen — was  suggested.  The  Highlands  could 
supply  8000  good  men,  but,  if  unpaid,  they  would  live  on  the 
country  and  ruin  the  Cause.  It  was  hoped  that  James  would  go 
to  a  Protestant  church  every  Sunday, — a  thing  out  of  the  question. 
If  the  king  judged  the  occasion  ripe  (and  they  had  proved  that  it 
was  the  reverse).  Mar  and  Ormonde  would  back  him.  Charles 
Kinnaird  carried  this  important  despatch. ^'^  There  came,  too, 
on  July  26  a  letter  from  Bolingbroke  at  Paris,  of  July  23.  He 
affected  to  be  surprised  that  "women  over  their  tea"  prattled 
about  "  arms  provided  and  ships  got  ready,"  as  if  in  any  society, 
above  all  in  a  society  full  of  excited  priests  and  women,  any  such 

VOL.    IV.  M 


178  JAMES   COUNTERMANDS   HIS   MESSAGE. 

measures  could  long  be  kept  secret.  The  English  Government 
already  had  ships  cruising  on  the  French  northern  coast.  Boling- 
broke  suspected  that  Father  Callaghan  was  a  spy :  he  was  not, 
according  to  Berwick.  Callaghan's  message  from  Ormonde  was,  in 
terms,  the  reverse  of  what  Ormonde  said  to  the  French  ambassador 
in  England,  Bolingbroke  remarked  ;  but  Ormonde's  moods  varied 
from  day  to  day.^^ 

On  July  26  James  answered  Bolingbroke's  letter  of  July  23, 
applauding  his  "  solid  reason,"  and  enclosing,  for  what  it  might  be 
worth,  a  warrant  for  an  earldom.  He  was  puzzled  by  Bolingbroke's 
cypher,  however.  He  sent  back  Kinnaird,  the  bearer  of  Mar's  and 
Ormonde's  memoir,  with  that  discouraging  document.  If  Boling- 
broke and  Berwick  were  doing  their  best,  though  he  wished  to  set 
out  he  would  leave  himself  in  their  hands.  He  adds,  and  this  is 
important,  "  IV/iat  requires  most  haste  now  is  t/ie  sending  to  Scotland 
to  contradict  Lord  John  Drummond^  s  message."  Now  what  was  that 
message?  The  MSS.  do  not  inform  us.  But  it  must  have  been 
James's  message  urging  on  Mar  an  early  rising,  on  the  strength  of 
Callaghan's  news  from  Ormonde  (about  July  15).  Thus  by  July  19 
James's  hasty  message  was  known  to  Bolingbroke  and  Berwick, 
despite  the  statement  of  Berwick  in  his  Memoirs.  James  was,  on 
July  26,  giving  pressing  orders  for  it  to  be  countermanded  more 
than  a  month  before  Mar  raised  the  standard  on  September  6. 
Berwick  knew  perfectly  that  James  had  fixed  August  10,  as  we 
have  seen.  He  knew  it  by  July  19.^^  Bolingbroke  also  knew 
it,  and  now  actually  sent  Allan  Cameron  to  Mar  to  give  counter- 
manding orders,  as  James  writes  to  Bolingbroke  on  August  2,  adding 
that  nothing  can  yet  be  settled.^**  The  king's  character  is  thus 
cleared  from  the  double  charge  of  folly  in  ordering  too  early  a  rising, 
for  he  at  once  countermanded  the  order,  and  of  perfidy  in  hiding 
what  he  had  done  from  Bolingbroke  and  Berwick.  As  we  shall  see 
later,  some  accident  delayed  Cameron,  and  Mar  raised  the  standard 
on  September  6.  This  also  was  an  act  of  unpardonable  folly. 
After  despatching  the  memoir  of  July  6-17  from  himself  and 
Ormonde,  pointing  out  the  hopeless  condition  of  affairs,  Mar,  ob- 
viously, should  not  have  acted  on  James's  hasty  message  of  about 
July  15  fixing  the  day  for  August  10.  Mar  should  have  waited 
for  a  reply  to  his  own  despatch  of  July  6-17.  He  cannot  have 
been  ignorant,  long  before  he  raised  the  standard,  of  Ormonde's 
flight  to  France  of  about  August  2  or  3  ;  and  knowing  that  the 


"QUEEN    OGLETHORPE."  I79 

English  Jacobites  were  now  leaderlcss,  he  did  an  insensate  thing 
in  raising  the  Highlands  in  September. 

The  blame  of  all  the  ruin  and  misery  falls  on  Ormonde  if  he  sent 
Callaghan,  as  Berwick  says ;  in  some  degree  on  Berwick  for  sug- 
gesting that  James's  honour  was  at  stake;  on  James  for  acting 
instantly  on  July  15,  four  days  before  his  report  to  his  Ministers; 
and  above  all  on  the  stupid  recklessness  of  Mar,  who  set  out  for 
Scotland  in  face  of  his  own  unanswered  despatch  of  July  6-17,  and 
who  persevered  in  spite  of  Ormonde's  secession.  Finally  came  the 
accident  to  Cameron,  delaying  James's  second  message  to  Scotland. 

These  causes  produced  the  premature  movements  and  the 
wretched  fiasco  of  1715. 

To  touch  on  a  personal  matter :  On  August  2  James  casually 
annihilates  Thackeray's  tale  that  "  Queen  Oglethorpe  "  was  his  Sul- 
tana and  ruler  at  Bar,  in  Lorraine.  Writing  from  Bar,  he  says  to 
Bolingbroke,  "  Here  is  a  long  letter  to  myself  from  Mistress  Ogle- 
thorpe. The  first  part  is  very  odd,  and  I  can  make  no  answer  to 
it  without  your  advice.  The  rest  of  it  is  most  of  it  stuff". "  On 
August  3  Bolingbroke  reports  his  despatch  of  Cameron  to  Scot- 
land "  to  prevetit  any  precipitate  measured'  ^^  Bolingbroke  had  met 
Berwick,  and  communicated  everything  to  him.  De  Torcy  was 
promising  help  with  Louis  XIV. ;  the  Court  of  France  was  as 
favourable  as  it  dared  to  be.  Meanwhile  (August  5)  Bolingbroke 
agreed  with  James's  opinion  of  Miss  Oglethorpe's  political  letter. 
The  lady  had  herself  invented  part  of  it  (such  is  apt  to  be  "  pretty 
Fanny's  way"),  and  was  communicating  in  the  other  part  the  ideas 
of  a  person  who  had  put  himself  in  a  position  where  he  could  be  of 
no  service. 

The  Oglethorpe  ladies  were  said  by  the  Whigs  to  be  the  sisters, 
or  one  or  another  of  them  was  declared  to  be  the  mistress,  of  James. 
They  were  all  pretty;  they  were  all  loyal ;  and  as  late  as  1754  were 
engaged  in  the  most  romantic  and  dangerous  Jacobite  plots. -^  But 
the  letters  both  of  James  and,  later,  his  son  show  that  the  Ogle- 
thorpean  counsels  were  regarded  as  tedious  and  ludicrous,  though, 
as  Bolingbroke  remarks,  *'  it  is  certainly  right  to  disgust  nobody " 
by  excess  of  candid  criticism.-^ 

James  was  impatient  to  be  doing  something ;  but  with  the  sad 
lucidity  of  his  character  and  experience,  he  thought  Bolingbroke 
and  Berwick  much  too  sanguine  in  their  expectations  from  the 
French  king,  who,  as  Queen  Mary  writes  to  Dicconson,  "  is,  I  am 


l8o  FLIGHT  OF   ORMONDE  (17 15). 

confident,  neither  in  a  condition  nor  a  disposition  of  giving  any 
succours."  -*  Tiie  king's  mother,  at  Saint  Germains,  was  poor  and 
very  ill.  He  had  promised  not  to  move  for  a  month,  but  after 
that,  as  the  discontents  in  England  and  Scotland  were  great  (senti- 
mental tumults  on  James's  birthday),  he  was  disposed  to  risk  all 
by  the  venture  of  his  single  person  (August  6).  He  believed  that 
his  secrets  were  safe,  being  known  only  to  himself,  Bolingbroke, 
Berwick,  Middleton,  Sir  Thomas  Higgons,  and  the  queen.  His 
subjects  at  home  detested  Middleton,  and  what  the  queen  knew 
might  reach  priests  and  ladies.  James  suspected  that  one  Ogilvie, 
"  who  had  formerly  enough  the  air  of  a  spy,"  was  hovering  about, 
— possibly  Harley's  spy,  Ogilvie,  one  of  Dundee's  officers. ^^ 

On  August  7  Bolingbroke  said  that  James  was  probably  aware 
of  the  arrival  in  Paris  of  Ormonde,  who  had  fled  from  England. 
Ormonde  had  let  the  party  know  of  his  resolve,  in  case  of  danger, 
to  retire  to  the  west  of  England,  where  he  would  be  joined  by  many 
retired  officers.  He  had  relays  of  horses  on  the  road,  and  intelli- 
gence with  the  towns  of  Plymouth,  Exeter,  and  Bristol,  which  he 
meant  to  occupy  as  places  cTarmes.  Berwick  believes  that  he  might 
have  succeeded,  and  even  been  joined  by  part  of  the  English  army, 
so  generally  beloved  was  the  Duke ;  but,  though  very  brave,  genius 
and  knowledge  of  war  were  lacking  to  him.  Ormonde  heard  that 
he  was  to  be  arrested,  and  fled  to  the  coast  without  leaving  even  a 
message  for  his  subordinates.-''  Ormonde's  flight  discouraged  the 
French  Court.  It  had  been  admitted  that  he  and  the  English 
Jacobites  were  indispensable  to  the  enterprise.  Yet  Bolingbroke 
(August  7)  could  tell  James  that  while  Marlborough  was  wavering, 
Shrewsbury  had  been  engaged,  "  which  I  think  a  considerable 
article."  If  this  be  true,  Shrewsbury  was  the  most  vacillating  of 
politicians.^^  James  was  writing  (August  11)  to  Mar,  apparently 
in  ignorance  of  his  movements  in  Scotland.  Indeed  Mar  had  not 
yet  (August  11)  gone  farther  than  Fifeshire,  where  he  met  some 
friends,  and  whence  he  went  slowly  northward  to  Braemar.^*^ 

De  Pontchartrain  hoped  to  have  ships  for  James  ready  by  the 
end  of  August,  so  Berwick  wrote  (August  13).  The  whole  state 
of  affairs,  in  fact,  demanded  the  cessation  of  the  crazy  enterprise, 
above  all  as  the  health  of  Louis  XIV.  already  caused  Berwick  and 
Bolingbroke  anxiety.  But  Berwick  thought  it  wise  to  set  Miss 
Olive  Trant,  a  Jacobite  beauty,  "to  make  the  overture"  to  the  Due 
d'Orlcans,  who  would  be  Regent  if  Louis  died.      Bolingbroke,  in 


JAMES,  BOLINGBROKE,  AND   MAR.  l8l 

his  famous  letter  to  Sir  William  Windham,  speaks  of  Olive  Trant's 
intrigues  as  if  he  was  a  disgusted  spectator,  whereas  we  see  that  the 
girl  was  the  chosen  instrument  of  his  own  associate,  Berwick.  But 
d'Orlcans  never  allowed  his  mistresses  to  have  knowledge  of  or 
influence  in  his  political  enterprises.^®  It  is  probably  not  Miss 
Trant  to  whom  Bolingbroke  himself  refers  (August  15)  as  one  who 
"has  as  much  ambition  and  cunning  as  any  woman  I  ever  knew, 
and  perhaps  as  any  man."  She  suggested  a  marriage  between 
James  and  a  daughter  of  d'Orlcans,  and  Bolingbroke  thought  that 
there  was  something  serious  in  the  idea.  "  I  would  have  even  the 
pleasures  and  amusements  of  my  life  subservient  to  your  Majesty's 
service."  It  appears  that  this  lady  was  one  of  the  pleasures  and 
amusements :  she  expressed  "  personal  concern "  for  the  states- 
man.^ It  may  be  remarked  as  a  proof  of  the  wisdom  of  these 
politicians  that  their  cypher  in  Arabic  numerals  was  of  the  flimsiest, 
and  could  have  been  read  by  any  curious  schoolboy.  The  worst 
news  was  that  an  accident  had  befallen  Cameron,  who  carried  the 
message  to  countermand  Mar's  Rising,  and  Kinnaird  was  afraid  to 
go  to  Scotland.^^  This  "accident"  probably,  by  delaying  the 
arrival  of  Cameron's  message  to  Scotland,  was  the  chief  cause  of 
Mar's  premature  venture.  Bolingbroke  now  convinced  James  that 
Shrewsbury  would  stand  by  him — it  seems  to  have  been  Lady 
Westmoreland's  news  :  the  ladies  were  very  eager. 2-  The  Duke  of 
Leeds  offered  his  allegiance, — "a  madman,"  said  the  sensible  Bol- 
ingbroke. On  August  30  he  announced  the  death  of  Louis  XIV., 
— another  fatal  blow,  if  a  coup  de  grace  were  needed. 

There  was  a  gleam  of  light  from  the  South.  Spain  was  to  furnish 
400,000  crowns ;  but  the  Spanish  bills  could  not  be  negotiated  in 
France,  and  the  specie  was  for  three  months  on  the  road.  The 
new  Regent,  d'Orlcans,  wished  to  be  friendly,  but  could  not  risk  a 
war  with  England.  On  September  3  James  Murray  informed  the 
king  that  Mar  was  in  Scotland,  but  was  very  uneasy  because  he  had 
no  authority  to  act.  He  asked  for  a  commission  with  a  blank  space 
for  the  names  of  his  coadjutors,  and  this  he  called,  when  he  re- 
ceived it,  his  "  new  commission."  He  had  no  previous  commission, 
as  was  suspected  in  Scotland  at  the  time.  He  thought  that  AthoU 
should  not  be  trusted.  As  usual,  AthoU's  son,  Lord  Tullibardine, 
"went  out,"  while  the  Duke  remained  true  to  the  Hanoverian  cause. 
For  five  hundred  years  almost  this  arrangement  had  been  "common 
form "  in    Scotland. ^^      Mar   could   rely   on    the    Earl    Marischal, 


l82  MAR   RAISES   THE   STANDARD   (17 1 5). 

brother  of  the  James  Keith  later  so  famous  as  Field -Marshal  of 
Frederic  the  Great.  The  Earl  Marischal  was,  for  forty  years,  to 
be  a  prominent  Jacobite,  who  never  did  anything  in  particular, 
and  was  always  expected  to  do  everything.  A  humourist  and  a 
philosopher,  he  ceased  to  believe  in  the  Cause  long  before  he 
deserted  it. 

Bolingbroke  began  (September  10)  to  express  a  kind  of  despair 
of  action.  Messages  to  England  and  Scotland  were  intercepted; 
the  party  in  France  and  at  home  were  in  the  dark.  Mar  was  begin- 
ning to  move  in  this  fog,  and  we  must  leave  the  conspirators  in 
France  to  follow  his  operations  in  Scotland. 

He  opened  with  a  great  hunting  in  Braemar  (August  26),  at  which 
Huntly,  eldest  son  of  the  Duke  of  Gordon,  the  Marquis  of  Tulli- 
bardine,  Nithsdale,  Marischal,  Traquair,  Errol,  Southesk,  Carnwath, 
Seaforth,  Linlithgow,  Kenmure,  Strathallan,  Ogilvie,  Nairne,  Glen- 
garry, and  others,  are  reported  to  have  been  present.  From  Gallo- 
way to  Knoydart,  from  Ken  to  Dee,  chiefs  and  nobles  were  gathered, 
but  their  names  no  longer  meant  what  they  did  in  the  days  of  Mary 
and  of  James  VI.  Mar  made  a  speech  full  of  flourishing  promises 
of  arms,  money,  and  the  king's  arrival,  and  is  said  to  have  shown 
the  commission  for  want  of  which,  we  know,  he  was  "in  great  un- 
easiness."^* His  audience  went  home  to  raise  their  men,  and  the 
standard  was  set  up  at  Braemar  on  September  6.  Marischal  pro- 
claimed the  king  at  Aberdeen,  Tullibardine  at  Dunkeld,  Graham 
of  Duntroon  at  Dundee,  and  Brigadier  Mackintosh  at  Inverness. 
Mar  (September  9-20)  found  his  own  tenants  especially  reluctant 
to  rise,  and  threatened  to  burn  their  houses.^^  This  was  the  pro- 
cess known  as  "hounding  out," — that  they  were  "hounded  out" 
was  the  usual  plea  of  the  Highland  prisoners  at  their  trials.  At 
Inverness  Mackintosh,  with  500  men,  seized  and  garrisoned  the 
bridge  over  the  Ness,  securing  communications  with  the  northern 
counties,  where  Sutherland,  the  Mackays,  and  the  Munros  were 
Whigs. 

To  surprise  Edinburgh  Castle  was  an  inevital)le  part  of  every 
Jacobite  plot,  and  on  September  8  Lord  John  Drummond  made 
the  attempt.  Some  of  the  garrison  had  been  won  over  to  let  down 
rope-ladders  from  the  wall  on  the  west  side.  In  case  of  success, 
three  rounds  of  artillery  were  to  be  fired  in  the  castle,  and  beacons 
were  to  telegraph  the  news  to  Mar.  A  Mr  Arthur,  who  was  in  the 
plot,  told  his  brother,  whose  wife  wormed  the  secret  out  of  him, 


PREPARATIONS   OF   GOVERNMENT.  183 

and  sent  it  to  Cockburn  of  Ormiston,  of  a  family  active  on  the 
godly  side  since  1559.  Ormiston  was  Lord  Justice-Clerk,  and, 
whether  in  the  way  described  or  another,  he  got  the  news,  and  sent 
it  to  Colonel  Stuart,  commanding  in  the  castle.  The  conspirators 
were  surprised  while  arranging  the  rope-ladders,  and  the  assailants 
fled,  leaving  a  Captain  Maclean,  bruised  by  a  fall.  Two  or  three 
others  were  captured.  They  were  probably  drunk.  According  to  a 
well-known  story,  they  had  dallied,  "powdering  their  hair,"  at  a 
tavern,  and  had  overstayed  the  appointed  hour, — a  circumstance 
natural  and  usual,  but  regretted  by  all  friends  of  romance. 

The  proceedings  of  Government,  in  the  way  of  preparation,  were 
more  prosaic  if  more  successful.  It  was  not  difficult  to  succeed 
against  opponents  who  knew  not  their  right  hand  from  their  left. 
A  reward  of  _;j^ioo,ooo  for  "the  Pretender,"  if  he  tried  to  land 
in  the  country,  had  for  a  year  been  offered.  This,  as  Prince  Charles 
observed  thirty  years  later,  was  a  measure  unusual  among  Christian 
princes.  Conceivably  the  knowledge  that  he  was  priced  at  this 
flattering  sum  may  have  determined  James  to  his  very  undignified 
flight  from  his  own  army  in  the  following  year.  Such  offers  of 
reward  were  thrown  away  upon  the  native  rectitude  of  the  clans, 
but  were  tempting  to  Presbyterian  ministers  like  the  two  Macaulays 
later,  and  to  Lowland  and  other  adventurers.  At  the  end  of  July 
Robert  Walpole  had  moved  an  address  to  George  L  on  the  topic 
of  national  defence.  Supplies  were  voted,  and  a  hasty  attempt  to 
double  the  regular  army  in  England  was  made  by  levies  of  7000 
men,  in  addition  to  8000  under  arms.  Mar  and  Ormonde,  in  July, 
had  reckoned  the  English  army  at  8000,  and  to  these  they  could 
have  opposed  as  many  of  the  clans,  without  artillery,  and  with  but 
a  few  Lowland  horse.  But  they  calculated  that  George  would  bring 
24,000  from  Ireland,  Holland,  and  Hanover,  and  volunteers  behind 
stone  walls  would  be  useful.^*'  In  Scotland,  Government  had  less 
than  2000  regulars,  whom  General  Wightman  concentrated  at 
Stirling.  The  castle  there  was  impregnable  to  the  clans,  save  by 
surprise,  and  "  Forth  bridles  the  wild  Highlandman."  The  fords 
of  Frew  are  dangerous  and  are  easily  guarded,  and  Mar  was  no 
Montrose  to  march  and  turn  the  river  in  difficult  country,  guarded 
by  the  clan  of  Argyll. ^^  Montrose  would  have  begun,  as  of  old, 
by  "  discussing  Argyll,"  not  now  such  an  easy  task  when  Red  John 
of  the  Battles,  not  Gillespie  Gruamach,  led  the  children  of  Diar- 
maid.      The   Macgregors  of  the   Lennox   were,    indeed,    reckoned 


1 84  MEASURES  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

among  Mar's  allies,  but  the  notorious  Rob  Roy  was  a  client  of 
Argyll,  receiving  "  wood  and  water "  from  him,  safe  from  the  law 
in  his  cottage  in  Glenshira,  and  quite  untrammelled  by  any  regard 
for  either  king.  The  nameless  clan  owed  no  goodwill  or  loyalty 
to  any  Government,  and,  as  far  as  influenced  by  Rob  Roy,  con- 
sulted solely  its  own  interests. 

The  westland  Whigs  and  Presbyterians  were  checked  in  their 
desire  to  form  armed  associations  in  defence  of  their  liberty  and 
religion:  the  same  distrust  was  exhibited  by  England  in  1745. 
But  Edinburgh,  Glasgow,  and  other  towns  raised  companies  of 
volunteers,  and  the  men  of  pleasant  Teviotdale  armed,  though,  de- 
generate Borderers,  they  "  made  but  a  faint  appearance "  when  it 
came  to  business.^  On  September  9  Argyll  left  London  for  the 
north  as  commander-in-chief,  as  well  qualified  by  courage,  skill,  and 
experience  for  the  post  as  Mar  was  conspicuously  the  reverse.  The 
preachers  acted  as  recruiting  officers,  and  the  westland  Whigs  were 
eager  to  meet  their  old  oppressors  of  the  Highland  host.  Under 
Ferguson  of  Craigdarroch  they  marched  to  support  the  regulars  at 
Stirling  and  to  garrison  towers  commanding  the  line  of  Forth,  while 
the  Duchess  of  Hamilton  lent  her  tenants  to  the  cause  not  favoured 
by  her  late  husband.  The  Whig  nobles  were  Argyll,  the  Duke 
of  Douglas, — who  had  little  or  none  of  the  old  Douglas  power, — 
Morton,  Roxburghe,  Annandale,  Stair,  Loudoun,  and  others.  Sus- 
pected nobles  and  gentlemen  were  summoned  to  appear  at  Edin- 
burgh, among  them  Campbell  of  Auchenbreck,  Campbell  of  Glen- 
daruel  of  the  Breadalbane  kin,  and  Campbell  of  Lochnell,  the 
first  cadet  of  Argyll,  for  the  Campbells  were  by  no  means  univer- 
sally subject  to  their  chief,  and  the  House  of  Lochnell,  as  long 
ago  at  Glenrinnes,  was  often  in  opposition.  Out  of  some  sixty 
gentlemen,  only  two  surrendered,  one  of  them  being  Lockhart's 
ally.  Sir  Alexander  Erskine,  the  Lord  Lyon  of  the  Herald's  Office. 
Lockhart  had  provided  horses  and  arms,  but  found  himself  little 
trusted  by  the  military  leaders,  and,  for  various  confused  reasons, 
was  now  in  prison,  now  under  surveillance.  His  brother  led  his 
men,  and  was  later  taken  prisoner  and  shot,  dying  with  grace  and 
courage'"  In  England  vigorous  measures  were  taken,  and  sus- 
pected gentlemen  were  locked  up. 

Meanwhile  Mar  learned  that  Rothes,  with  ilic  ^\'higs  of  Fife, 
was  marching  to  occupy  Perth.  He  himself  Iiad  about  1000 
men  at  Dunkcld.     Tullibardine's  AthoU  contingent,  with  the  aged 


MAR   DILATORY.  1 85 

Breadalbane's  from  Glenorchy,  came  in,  some  2000  under  Glen- 
daruel  and  Glenlyon,  and  joined  him.  He  sent  John  Hay,  brother 
of  Lord  Kinnoull,  to  seize  Perth,  which  was  easily  done,  and  Mar 
was  master  of  the  east,  from  Fife  to  Aberdeen.  Perth  was  his 
headquarters  till  the  end  came,  and  with  Huntly's,  Seaforth's, 
Marischal's,  Mackintosh's  men,  and  the  clans  of  the  west,  he  is 
thought  to  have  been  at  the  head  of  12,000  broadswords.'*'^ 

Montrose  or  Dundee  never  had  such  an  army,  and,  with  Mon- 
trose or  Dundee  to  lead,  they  would  soon  have  taken  Edinburgh 
and  joined  hands  with  the  Jacobites  of  Cumberland  and  Lancashire. 
But  Mar  dallied,  probably  awaiting  James,  whom  he  expected  to 
come  with  supplies,  on  which  the  English  Government  caused  the 
Regent  to  lay  an  embargo.  Mar's  delay  was  another  piece  of  fatal 
folly :  James  might  as  well  have  been  awaited  at  Edinburgh  or  in 
England.  On  the  other  hand,  the  dilatory  Mar  allowed  the  enter- 
prise to  be  wasted  and  ruined  before  the  king  came,  and  added 
his  melancholy  to  the  general  sense  of  discomfiture. 

It  is  not  uninteresting  to  know  what  a  private  citizen  thought 
of  the  aspect  of  affairs,  which  in  Scotland  was  certainly  not  en- 
couraging to  Whigs,  in  September-October.  Wodrow  was  reckoned 
nervous, — "a  feared  fool," — but  writes,  "The  Providence  of  Scot- 
land's God  has  been  adorable  at  this  very  juncture  "  in  causing  the 
death  of  Louis  XIV.  This  was  one  of  "the  viagnalia  Dei  in  be- 
half of  poor  Scotland  " — that  is,  of  Whiggish  Scotland.  Louis  being 
dead,  Wodrow  could  not  understand  the  action  of  Mar,  except  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  committed  himself  and  wanted  company  in 
his  situation.  Wodrow  was  much  comforted  by  the  western  volun- 
teers at  Glasgow,  and  by  the  permission  of  the  Regent  to  Byng  to 
search  ships  coming  from  Havre  to  Scotland.  On  the  whole,  con- 
sidering that  Argyll  had  not  2000  men,  and  that  the  minister  of 
Eastwood  was  naturally  anxious,  he  took  a  sensible  view  of  the 
posture  of  affairs."*^ 

Meanwhile,  in  September,  James  and  BoHngbroke  knew  little  of 
what  was  occurring.  A  mournful  message  to  England  was  carried 
by  Ezekiel  Hamilton.  The  Regent  had  caused  the  ships  at  Havre 
to  be  unloaded  of  their  arms  and  supplies ;  the  money  from  Spain 
was  likely  to  be  long  delayed,  but  the  king  would  go  to  Scotland 
at  all  hazards  if  the  Highlands  had  really  risen,  which  was  un- 
certain. By  September  23  James  still  hoped  that  the  Scots  would 
do  nothing  hasty,  as  has  already  been  shown,  in  reference  to  the 


l86  CHARACTER   OF  JAMES. 

delay  of  his  message  of  the  end  of  July.*^  He  had  never  believed 
in  the  Swedish  aid :  money  had  been  wasted  in  that  quarter. 
"  The  Swedish  king's  reply  is  both  reasonable  and  unanswerable, 
though  very  unfortunate  for  me,"  remarks  James,  with  his  natural 
sad  lucidity.  An  adventurer  who  hopes  for  little  and  regards  a 
disappointing  reply  as  unanswerable  because  it  is  "  reasonable,"  is 
obviously  not  born  to  success  in  politics.  "  On  the  whole,  I  must 
confess  my  affairs  have  a  very  melancholy  prospect."  He  did  not 
see  how  the  Regent  could  possibly  avoid  stopping  and  unlading  his 
ships — in  short,  James  saw  things  as  they  were,  clearly  and  with 
resignation.  But  he  conceived  that  honour  demanded  his  presence 
in  Scotland. 

To  the  world  James  will  ever  be  the  witty,  wild,  faithless,, 
amorous  prince  of  Thackeray's  creation.  We  see  what  manner  of 
man  he  really  was, — not  one  who  played  tennis  or  tipsified  himself 
with  ratifia  in  the  company  of  "  Queen  Oglethorpe,"  but  a  sober, 
diligent,  reasonable,  sad  young  man ;  affectionate,  depressed,  true 
to  creed  and  honour.  Bolingbroke  was  more  sanguine  than  James, 
and  Berwick  seems  to  have  put  more  faith  than  Bolingbroke  in 
letters  describing  the  apprehensions  of  the  English  Government 
and  a  fall  in  stocks.  To  Bolingbroke  the  writer  of  the  letters 
seemed  to  possess  more  zeal  than  knowledge,  and  more  imagination 
than  judgment.  Even  now  (September  25)  Mar's  commission  was 
dubious,  and  Bolingbroke  desired  that  one  should  be  drawn  up 
"with  a  blank  for  the  commander-in-chief."  As  Berwick  did  not 
mean  to  appear,  the  blank  could  not  easily  be  filled  up.  Mar  was 
incompetent,  and  probably  the  titled  Jacobites  would  have  declined 
to  serve  under  Glengarry.  Bolingbroke  looked  forward  to  the  rise 
of  "a  new  set  of  compounders  with  Government,"  nor  was  he 
deceived.*^ 

Meanwhile  Berwick  insisted  that  James  must  depart  instantly  for 
Scotland  :  the  journey  through  France  might  not  easily  be  accom- 
plished in  safety.  Berwick  would  be  "sensibly  mortified"  if  not 
permitted  to  follow  the  king.'*'*  James  replied  that  nobody  could 
hinder  Berwick  from  going  if  he  wished  to  go.  Berwick  (October  7) 
answered  that  he  "  was  not  his  own  master."  Now  James,  for  the 
reasons  already  given  (p.  175),  regarded  his  brother  as  his  subject: 
this  difference  of  opinion  was  incurable.  On  October  7  Boling- 
broke declared  that  the  Regent  would  certainly  connive  at  James's 
proceedings.     Otherwise,  if  James  were  in  England  or  Scotland  he 


TREACHERY   OF   A   MACLEAN.  1 8/ 

would  be  cut  off  from  all  communication  with  tlie  Continent ;  only 
the  connivance  of  the  Regent  could  avert  that  danger. 

Ezekiel  Hamilton  now  came  back  from  England  with  a  message 
that  Ormonde  must  land  in  the  west  (October  lo).  James  said 
that  Ormonde  could  not  start  before  he  went  himself,  and  that 
Berwick,  having  become  "  incomprehensible,"  must  be  left  out  of 
the  knowledge  of  their  plans.  He  thought  Berwick  the  cause  of 
the  French  distrust  of  him — probably  without  reason  ;  but  Berwick 
does  appear  to  have  misdoubted  the  king's  resolution,  though,  in 
some  private  letters,  he  describes  his  difficulty  in  holding  James 
back.  "  I  fear  I  shall  scarce  be  able  to  hinder  him  [James]  from 
passing  the  sea,"  Berwick  wrote.  Bolingbroke  had  inklings  of  an 
English  plot  to  seize  James  on  his  way  to  the  sea,  which  he 
frequently  dwelt  upon  (October  i8).  There  was  still  no  news 
from  the  Highlands.  James  must  travel  in  disguise,  and  conceal 
his  route.  "Stair  has  people  on  most  of  the  roads,"  ill-favoured  ones 
(October  21).  On  October  21  Berwick  declined  "to  obey  your 
Majesty's  commands,"  sans phraseA^  For  some  reason  (October  23) 
James  thought  he  had  cause  to  be  pleased  with  Mar,  and  to 
make  him  a  duke  and  absolute  in  command.  After  Berwick's 
explicit  note  he  could  trust  him  no  more:  "He  will  not,  I  dare 
say,  expect  it."  A  spy  now  reports  that  an  Irish  Protestant,  Kelly, 
has  left  for  Bar  on  a  mission  to  kill  King  James.  The  spy  himself 
does  not  believe  that  either  George  or  his  Ministers  "  has  a  share 
in  so  execrable  a  design."  ^^  But  Bolingbroke  continued  to  fear 
that  Stair  had  a  design  of  kidnapping  James,  at  least.  "  His  spies 
are  on  every  road."  The  Duke  of  Berwick  (November  3)  had 
consulted  "  lawyers  and  casuists,"  and  found  that  these  interpreters 
of  law  and  conscience  would  not  permit  him  to  obey  his  brother. 
Meanwhile  (November  4),  one  Maclean,  a  colonel  in  French  serv- 
ice, had  betrayed  Ormonde's  designs  to  the  English  Government : 
they  had  seized  persons  and  places  on  which  he  relied.  He  was 
aware,  however,  of  Maclean's  treachery.*^  On  November  8  James 
was  at  St  Malo.^^ 

Saint  -  Simon's  narrative  of  James's  journey  across  France  is 
interesting.  The  Regent,  to  satisfy  Stair,  sent  two  officers  of  the 
Guard,  with  two  sergeants,  to  Chateau  Thierry,  where  the  English 
ambassador  knew  that  James  was  to  pass.  They  had  orders  not  to 
see  the  king,  but  Stair  took  his  own  measures.  James  secretly  left 
Bar  and  visited  his  mother  at  Chaillot,  sleeping  at  ?i  petite  maison. 


188  STAIR'S   ATTEMPT   ON   JAMES. 

placed  at  his  disposal  by  Lauzun.     The  meeting  of  the  son  and 
mother  must  have  been  sad  indeed :  they  were  tenderly  attached 
to  each  other,  and  the  queen's  life  had  been  a  series  of  sorrows, 
disasters,  and  disappointments.    Next  day  (Nov.  i)  James  drove  along 
the  Alengon  road,  tracked  by  an  Irish  Colonel  Douglas,  also  driving, 
accompanied  by  two  men  armed  and  on  horseback.     At  Nonancourt, 
a  village  between  Dreux  and  Verneuil-au-Perche,  Douglas  stopped  at 
an  inn.     The  woman  of  the  house,  whom  Saint-Simon  knew,  was 
moved  to  suspect  that  Douglas   meant  no  good  to  the  occupant 
of  a  chaise  about  which  he  made  anxious  inquiries,  and  all  France 
now  knew  that  James  had  left  Bar  and  was  on  the  road.     Douglas 
left  the  inn  with  one  of  his  men ;  the  other,  with  one  who  had 
just  joined  him,  remained  in  the  tavern.     The  woman  persuaded 
one  of  this  pair  to  go  to  bed  after  a  protracted  supper,  and  then 
went  out  and  borrowed   the  costume  and  wig  of  an  abbe  from  a 
friendly  priest.     Her  chief  servant  drank  with  the  Englishman  who 
sat  up  till  that  worthy  philosophically  reposed  beneath  the  table. 
Meanwhile  the  woman  ascertained  that  the  other  Englishman  was 
asleep,   and   locked   the   door  of  his  room    on    the   outside.      A 
servant,  placed  as  sentinel,  announced  the  approach  of  a  chaise 
accompanied  by  three  mounted   men.     The  passenger  was   King 
James,  whom  the  woman  took  to  the  house  of  a  female  friend,  and 
there  concealed  him  and  his  three  companions.     The  next  step 
was  to  induce  a  justice  to  arrest  on  suspicion  the  two  Englishmen 
at  the  inn.     They  made  a  noise  and  invoked  the  English  ambas- 
sador, but  from  him  they  had  no  credentials,  and  they  were  locked 
up.     What  became  of  Colonel  Douglas  is  uncertain  :  he  was  met 
here  and  there  on   the  highways  asking  questions.      After  three 
days  James,  dressed  as  an  abbe,  set  out  in   another  chaise,  and 
arrived  at  St  Malo  in  safety.     Douglas,  who  had  been  on  the  best 
of  terms  with  the  Regent,  lost  credit  and  disappeared,  leaving  his 
wife  to  live  on  charity. 

To  authenticate  the  tale  Saint-Simon  adds  that  Mary  did  but 
invite  the  woman  of  the  inn  to  Saint  Germains,  and  gave  her  nothing 
but  her  portrait, — a  horrid  instance  of  royal  ingratitude.  Mary  had 
nothing  to  give:  she  had  sold  all  her  jewels  except  two  rings.  "No- 
body can  tell  what  the  poor  woman's  expenses  were,"  and,  indeed, 
except  for  wine  enough  to  intoxicate  a  Briton,  it  would  be  difficult 
to  guess  where  expense  could  arise.  Stair  neither  denied  nor  con- 
fessed the  truth  of  the  tale,  but  we  shall  find  him  perhaps  con- 


INDOLENCE   OK    MAR.  1 89 

cerned  in  a  much  darker  business.^^  We  add  Stair's  own  report 
to  his  Government.  The  king's  disguise  conforms  to  Saint-Simon's 
description. 

"An  enclosure  from  Ld.  Stair's,  Nov.  12,  1715. 

"Saturday  week  last  the  Pretender,  between  9  &  10  o'clock, 
passed  within  10  leagues  of  Evreux  on  his  way  to  the  Norman 
coast,  accompanied  by  one  St  Paul,  son  of  a  Frenchwoman  &  an 
Englishman,  in  quality  of  valet  de  chambre  &  surgeon,  &  preceded 
by  another  man  to  hurry  the  relays  of  horses.  Seeing  the  person 
who  gave  this  information  recognised  them,  St  Paul  took  him  into 
confidence  &  asked  him  to  tell  the  Queen  at  St  Germain  of  their 
good  health  :  he  noticed  that  their  post-chaise  was  poor  enough  & 
without  glass. 

"  Le  Pretendant  etoit  habille  en  Evesque  de  campagne,  ayant  un 
Surtout  violet,  avec  des  boutons  d'or,  une  petite  peruque  Abacialle 
et  un  petit  collet,  une  petite  croix  d'or  abacialle  ou  Episcopale,  et 
le  chapeau  sans  retrousse."  ^'^ 

Berwick  says  that  there  was  gossip  about  Stair's  trying  to  procure 
James's  assassination.  He  himself  found  no  evidence  beyond 
frivolous  legends,  and  believed  Stair,  though  a  "Wigh,"  too  honour- 
able for  such  designs.  Saint-Simon,  who  knew  the  innkeeper,  was 
of  another  opinion — not  unjustly,  as  documents  prove.^^ 

Meanwhile,  as  Berwick  observes.  Mar  "was  amusing  himself"  at 
Perth.  "Had  he  marched  at  once  with  his  8000  or  10,000  men 
he  would  have  met  no  opposition,  and  Argyll  would  have  been 
obliged  to  retire  on  Berwick."  Thence  he  might  have  moved  to 
join  the  English  Jacobites.  "  But  he  had  drawn  the  sword  and 
knew  not  how  to  advance,  and  so  missed  the  best  opportunity 
that  had  occurred  since   1688." 

That  is,  in  brief,  the  history  of  Mar's  campaign:  his  was  "an 
army  of  lions  led  by  a  deer." 

We  owe  a  remarkably  vivacious  picture  of  Mar's  conduct  of  the 
campaign  to  a  singular  person,  the  Master  of  Sinclair,  who  writes 
with  the  bitterness  of  Sir  Malachi  Malagrowther.  The  eldest  son  of 
the  seventh  Lord  Sinclair,  the  Master  had  been  Captain-Lieutenant 
in  Preston's,  under  Marlborough.  At  Webb's  victory  at  Winendaal 
(September  28,  1 708)  an  Ensign  Shaw,  one  of  the  Shaws  of  Greenock 
(now  Shaw-Stewart),  saw,  or  said  he  saw,  Sinclair  adopting  a  position 
remote  from  the  perpendicular.  Sinclair  challenged  Shaw,  who  was 
unable  to  meet  him  at  the  moment,  as  he  was  going  to  see  a  fatally 


IQO  NARRATIVE   OF   THE   MASTER   OF   SINCLAIR. 

■wounded  brother.  Next  day  Sinclair  struck  Shaw,  they  fought, 
Shaw's  sword  doubled  up  and  Sinclair's  was  broken,  but  Shaw  was 
mortally  wounded.  His  brother,  Alexander  Shaw,  declared  that 
Sinclair  wore  paper  (a  pad  of  paper,  apparently,  in  his  breast), 
against  which  the  sword  of  his  opponent  was  bent.  Sinclair,  after 
an  altercation,  pistolled  Shaw  in  front  of  his  regiment.  Sinclair 
says  that  a  court-martial  recommended  him  to  mercy.  Sir  John 
Shaw,  brother  of  the  two  slain  men,  declares  that  the  Attorney- 
General  and  Solicitor  have  united  in  the  opinion  "that  Sinclair 
stands  convicted  of  wilful  murder,"  but  does  not  deny  that  the 
court-martial  recommended  him  to  mercy.  In  reply  to  Sir  John, 
Marlborough  said  that  he  had  laid  the  case  before  the  Solicitor  and 
Attorney-General.  They  left  the  question  of  mercy  to  Marlborough, 
who,  according  to  Sinclair,  advised  him  to  make  his  escape,  which 
he  finally  did.  "  Queen  Anne  having,  as  it  was  said,  turned  Tory, 
vouchsafed  me  her  pardon."  In  17 15  Sinclair  joined  the  Jacobites, 
but,  detesting  Mar  and  being  a  man  of  furious  temper,  distinguished 
himself  on  only  one  occasion.  How  he  behaved  at  Sheriffmuir 
will  appear  later.  Sinclair  lived,  not  in  great  popularity,  till  1750. 
Sir  John  Shaw  fought  very  bravely  on  the  Whig  side  at  Sheriffmuir, 
receiving  two  wounds.  It  will  be  apparent  that  Sinclair's  evidence 
is  to  be  taken  with  due  allowance  for  his  character  and  temper. ^^ 

By  Sinclair's  account,  when  Perth  was  seized,  the  invaders  had 
only  five  or  six  pounds  of  powder,  which  they  picked  up  in  the 
town.  Mar  sent  promises  to  the  200  Lowlanders  who  had  seized 
the  place,  but  for  long  did  not  perform  them.  At  last  Robertson 
of  Struan  came  in  with  200  or  300  of  Clan  Donnachie,  Southesk 
with  a  handful  of  horse  and  some  Lowland  footmen.  Panmure 
arrived  with  his  levies,  Aboyne  with  the  gay  Gordons,  Nairne  with 
some  Atholl  Highlanders,  so  that  "  there  were  a  great  many  men, 
but  no  such  thing  as  order."  There  was  no  money  to  pay  the 
levies,  and  Maule  of  Melgum  said,  "  Never  were  men  so  idly 
brought  in  for  their  lives  and  fortunes  as  we  were."  All  this 
was  highly  characteristic  of  Mar's  dilatory  mismanagement.  "  Lies 
were  the  life  of  our  affair,"  sanguine  rumours,  till  Mar  came  down 
with  all  Atholl  and  a  few  recruits  from  Braemar,  wliere  people- 
waited  for  Invercauld  to  move.  The  avalanche  of  Highlanders 
carried  along  the  half-hearted  Perthshire  retainers  of  Drummond, 
"forced  out,"  General  Hamilton  now  began  to  try  to  organise 
magazines,  to  procure  forage,  and  regulate  cjuarters  :  llic  delay  had 


MAR'S    NEGLIGENCE   AT   PERTH.  I9I 

vexed  the  soul  of  Sinclair,  a  professional  soldier,  accustomed  to 
the  methods  of  Marlborough,  Hamilton  told  Sinclair,  who  "  was 
not  fond  of  the  commission,"  that  he  was  to  lead  1000  men  through 
the  counties  south  of  Forth,  raising  the  gentry,  and  thence  jom  the 
Jacobites  of  Cumberland.  Nothing  came  of  this  :  arms,  powder, 
and  ball  were  not  available.  Sinclair  thought  that,  if  England 
was  thus  waiting  for  Scotland  to  begin,  Mar  had  misrepresented 
the  facts,  and  he  "formed  a  very  bad  idea  of  the  state  of  our  affairs." 
In  fact,  Sinclair's  chief  business  was  croaking  and  demoralising  all 
who  would  listen  to  his  grumblings.  Mar,  he  says,  consulted 
nobody  when  he  arrived  at  Perth,  but  behaved  "like  another 
Moses,"  come  down,  fully  inspired,  from  a  mountain.  Mar  was 
encouraged  by  the  arrival  of  James  Murray  from  France :  he 
now  had  a  commission  at  last,  and  James's  speedy  arrival  was 
announced.  But,  for  reasons  already  described,  the  king's  coming 
was  delayed  till  it  only  endangered  himself,  while  his  melancholy 
was  injurious  to  the  spirit  of  adherents  already  discouraged. 

In  Perth  the  Highlanders  grew  mutinous  for  want  of  pay,  the 
money  contributed  to  the  cause  by  Spain  arriving  too  late  to  be 
of  service.  Panmure  and  Southesk  subscribed  ^500  each,  and 
Mar  levied  cess  on  the  Lowland  districts  within  his  sphere.  He 
demanded  jQ\  sterling  on  every  ;!^ioo  Scots  of  valued  rental. 
According  to  Rae,  the  Presbyterian  ministers  were  plundered  be- 
cause they  would  not  pray  for  King  James,  and  some  were  driven 
from  their  manses.  The  Provincial  Synods  replied  with  appeals 
to  Presbyterian  loyalty.^^  At  Perth  every  sort  of  jealousy  abounded. 
Drummond  had  a  commission  to  command  the  horse,  and  the 
squadrons  of  the  various  counties  quarrelled  about  precedence. 
"All  the  others  took  it  ill  that  Linglithgow,  whose  squadron  was 
weak  and  mostly  composed  of  Stirlingshire  gentlemen,  should  carry 
the  Royal  standard,"  says  Sinclair,  who  commanded  the  Cavaliers  of 
Fife.  He  had  already  "told  Mar  my  opinion  of  him  very  plainly." 
Whether  Mar  obliged  with  his  own  opinion  of  Sinclair  does  not 
appear.  Arms  were  neglected,  muskets  were  rusty  and  useless, 
it  was  nobody's  business  to  provide  powder.  Montrose  would 
have  attacked  Argyll  and  tried  to  take  his  ammunition,  and  Mar 
did  order  the  clans  to  march  into  Argyll's  territory.  But  Clan- 
ranald,  Lochiel,  Glengarry,  and  Stewart  of  Appin  were  not  yet 
stirring,  according  to  Sinclair  :  probably  they  were  getting  in  their 
oaten  harvest.     Huntly,  Marischal,  and  Seaforth  were  as  dilatory. 


192  FEATS   OF   THE   MACGREGORS. 

Glengarry — "  it's  hard  to  say  whether  he  has  more  of  the  bear,  the 
Hon,  or  the  fox  in  him  " — marched  into  Glenorchy  and  began  to 
gain  recruits.  But  the  Earl  of  Islay  had  been  sent  to  organise 
the  Campbells,  and  secure  Inveraray  from  invasion. 

The  fortunes  of  war  in  the  west  may  here  be  treated,  as 
they  influenced  the  whole  ineffectual  campaign.  It  was  about 
September  20  that  Glengarry  and  Grant  of  Glenmoriston  marched 
to  raise  Glenorchy,  hoping  to  sweep  the  country,  take  Inveraray,  and 
meet  Mar  in  the  Lennox  early  in  October.  Thence  the  combined 
Jacobite  force  would  march  by  way  of  Glasgow  into  Cumberland. 
But  Argyll's  men  acted  with  energy,  and  the  Duke  himself  gave 
his  chamberlain  orders  to  supply  the  pay  of  the  levies.  At  this 
moment  Lochnell,  Lochiel,  and  Appin  were  inclined,  or  professed 
to  be  inclined,  to  submit  if  the  Duke  of  Argyll  could  protect  them 
and  obtain  good  terms  for  them.  But  whether  this  was  a  pretext 
to  secure  delay,  or  whether  the  chiefs  changed  their  minds,  they 
did  not  come  in.  Islay  took  the  command  of  the  western  Whigs 
in  Argyll,  and  Glengarry  joined  forces  at  Strathfillan,  in  Perthshire, 
with  Clanranald  and  300  of  the  dubious  Macgregors  under  Rob 
Roy's  nephew,  Glengyle.  According  to  the  author  of  'The  Loch 
Lomond  Expedition,'^*  Mar  tempted  "the  nameless  clan"  with 
the  promise  that  they  should  be  nameless  no  longer.  The  Act 
of  Proscription  against  them  had  been  renewed  in  the  reign  of 
William  III.,  and  Macgregors  were  constrained  to  use  other  names, 
Campbell  and  Drummond  being  favourites. 

On  September  29  a  large  number  of  the  pretty  fellows  of  this 
unfortunate  clan  seized  the  boats  on  Loch  Lomond,  and  occupied 
the  Isle  of  Inchmurrin,  landing,  at  midnight,  within  three  miles  of 
the  old  key  of  the  west,  the  Castle  of  Dumbarton.  The  alarm 
was  raised  through  the  countryside  by  ringing  the  church  bells  : 
the  castle  fired  some  guns.  The  feat  of  the  surprise  by  Thomas 
Crawford  during  the  Douglas  wars  was  too  plainly  impossible. 
The  Macgregors  retired,  with  the  boats  which  they  had  seized,  the 
booty  they  had  taken,  and  ample  provision  from  the  red  deer  of  the 
Duke  of  Montrose's  forest,  to  Inversnaid,  and  moved  to  join  Mar. 
Thence  they  returned  to  their  fastness  of  Craigroyston,  and  mustered 
on  October  10  on  the  north-east  side  of  Loch  Lomond. 

Possessing  a  flotilla  of  boats,  the  Macgregors  were  thoroughly 
enjoying  themselves,  with  the  means  of  landing  where  they  pleased 
and  seizing  arms  and  booty  in  general.      To  interfere  with  their 


LOCH   LOMOND   EXPEDITION.  I93 

designs  a  body  of  Paisley  volunteers  and  Ayrshire  men  garrisoned 
the  country  houses  of  the  region,  and  determined  to  recover  the 
fleet  captured  by  the  Macgregors.  The  naval  force  of  the  Whigs 
was  provided  by  the  ships  of  war  lying  in  the  Firth  of  Clyde. 
A  hundred  sailors,  "  with  pateraroes  and  large  screw  guns,"  four 
pinnaces,  and  as  many  long-boats,  mustered  at  the  quay  of  Dum- 
barton, and  the  boats,  "  by  the  strength  of  horses,  were  drawn  the 
space  of  three  miles  up  the  river  Leven,  which,  next  to  Spey,  is 
reckoned  the  most  rapid  river  in  Scotland."  The  boats  and  men 
thus  reached  the  mouth  of  Loch  Lomond  :  the  Paisley  volunteers 
embarked,  and  contingents  of  Argyll  and  Dumbartonshire  lairds, 
with  their  foUowings,  under  an  uncle  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  marched 
and  rode  up  the  north-west  side.  It  was  a  brilliant  spectacle :  the 
pinnaces  spread  their  sails  and  fired  their  pateraroes,  making  "so 
very  dreadful  a  noise,  through  the  multiplied  rebounding  echoes  of 
the  vast  mountains,"  as  must  have  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of 
the  Macgregors.  The  Colquhouns  joined  the  expedition  at  Luss, 
each  with  his  gun  and  target  bearing  a  steel  spike,  half  an  ell  long, 
in  its  centre ;  each  with  a  claymore,  a  few  pistols,  and  a  dirk.  Such 
was  the  panoply  of  the  clansman,  a  walking  arsenal. 

News  came  that  Glengarry,  with  a  large  force,  was  approaching 
from  Strathfillan,  some  five  hours'  march  distant.  Undaunted,  the 
Whigs  advanced  to  Inversnaid,  where  they  bombarded  a  cottage. 
The  garrison,  a  pair  of  old  women,  surrendered  at  discretion ;  no 
more  dangerous  force  was  seen  than  a  few  Macgregor  scouts,  "  out 
of  reach  on  the  craggy  rocks."  The  Paisley  men  then  leaped 
on  shore  "  with  the  greatest  intrepidity,"  and  climbed  a  hill  without 
opposition.  They  took  or  sunk  the  fleet  of  the  Macgregors,  and 
returned  to  Dumbarton  after  this  bloodless  victory.  The  annals 
of  Paisley  record  no  more  remarkable  military  exploit.  As  for  the 
Macgregors,  they  had  fallen  back  on  Glengarry  at  Strathfillan,  who, 
with  the  Appin  men,  the  Macleans,  fifty  Macdougals  of  Lome  (how 
shrunk  was  the  clan  that  all  but  conquered  Bruce!),  and  others, 
numbered  over  2000  broadswords.  On  October  17  they  set  out  for 
Inveraray,  and  must  have  marched  as  only  Highlanders  can,  for 
they  arrived  on  the  19th.  Islay  had  mustered  about  1000  men  in 
Inveraray,  the  town  was  in  a  posture  of  defence,  and,  to  clansmen 
without  artillery,  seemed  formidable.  The  chiefs  paused  and  de- 
manded a  parley  with  Islay,  who  only  desired  to  amuse  them  while 
reinforcements  of  regulars  from  Ireland  joined  Argyll  at  Stirling. 

VOL.  IV.  N 


194  THE   MASTER'S   RAID. 

Apparently  Clanranald  and  Glengarry  were  in  no  haste,  for  they 
entered  into  negotiations  which  were  actually  jocular.  In  three 
days  the  clans  retreated  towards  StrathfiUan,  and  400  of  Bread- 
albane's  men  laid  down  their  arms.  In  short,  the  affair  was  a 
farce,  and  Islay  had  no  more  encounters  till  he  arrived,  a  month 
later,  at  Sheriff  Muir. 

So  far  the  strife  had  been  as  harmless  as  those  old  wars  of 
Torelore,  in  the  tale,  where  the  men  fought  with  apples  and  cheeses. 
The  aristeia,  or  supreme  success,  of  the  Master  of  Sinclair  was 
clever  and  bloodless.  On  a  Sunday  morning,  in  Perth,  he  was 
roused  by  a  certain  trader,  who  took  him  out  to  the  South  Inch, 
and  there  told  his  business.  He  had  ridden  all  night  to  say  that 
a  small  ship,  laden  with  arms  and  ammunition  for  the  Whig  Earl 
of  Sutherland,  was  lying  in  Bruntisland  harbour.  Some  3000 
stand  of  arms,  he  declared,  was  on  board.  Sinclair  knew  that  the 
man  was  of  a  mythopceic  character,  but  he  went  and  roused  Mar. 
That  commander,  after  wasting  much  time,  ordered  Sinclair  to  go 
for  the  arms  with  his  Fifeshire  horse.  The  danger  lay  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Stirling,  whence  Argyll,  if  news  of  the  scheme 
reached  him,  might  send  dragoons  to  cut  off  Sinclair's  party.  With 
eighty  of  his  troop  the  Master  rode  out  at  nightfall,  avoiding  villages. 
He  seized  several  boats  at  Bruntisland,  posted  sentries,  took  the 
ship  by  aid  of  the  boats,  and  brought  her  from  the  roadstead  into 
harbour.  On  returning  Sinclair  found  his  men  scattered  in  taverns. 
Standing  in  the  water,  Sinclair  took  the  muskets  as  they  were  handed 
out, — his  own  men  had  only  pistols, — and  found  that  the  pieces 
were  only  300  in  number.  His  mythopoeic  informer  had  multiplied 
them  by  ten.  There  were  a  few  barrels  of  powder  of  about  100 
lb.,  cartridges,  bullets,  and  flints.  Some  of  the  town-guards'  powder 
and  firelocks  were  also  seized,  and  about  four  in  the  morning 
Sinclair's  work  was  done.  A  few  of  his  undisciplined  command 
rode  off  on  a  morning  visit  to  a  minister  whom  they  had  a  mind 
to  tease.  A  party  of  Highlanders,  stationed  to  guard  the  road, 
scampered  off  when  Sinclair  said  that  the  Duke  of  Argyll  was 
coming.  They  plundered  the  peasants  as  they  hurried  to  Perth,  and, 
in  short,  Sinclair  had  a  successful  but  most  disorderly  camisado. 
At  Perth  the  Highlanders  and  Lowlanders  were  squabbling  over 
commands  and  points  of  precedence:  to  manage  such  an  army 
required  a  Montrose  or  a  Dundee, 

In   England,   meanwhile,   the   traitor   Maclean    had    thrown    the 


KENMURE   AND   FORSTEK'S   RISINGS.  I95 

Jacobites  of  the  south-west — from  Plymouth  to  Oxford — into  the 
hands  of  the  Government.  The  towns  were  secured,  the  leaders 
were  in  flight  or  under  lock  and  key.  But  in  Lancashire  and 
Northumberland,  where  were  many  old  Catholic  families,  Mr  Forster 
and  the  Earl  of  Derwentwater  did  not  wait,  like  Lansdowne  and 
Sir  William  Windham,  to  be  culled  like  flowers  by  the  agents  of 
the  law.  Early  in  October  they  began  to  muster  a  small  troop  of 
mounted  gentlemen,  were  joined  by  Lord  Widrington,  of  a  loyal 
Cavalier  family,  and,  under  Forster's  leadership,  proclaimed  King 
James  at  Warkworth,  Alnwick,  and  small  adjacent  towns.  New- 
castle held  for  the  Elector,  so  Forster  sent  to  Mar,  asking  for  foot- 
soldiers.  The  Cause  would  have  had  a  better  chance,  perhaps, 
if  Scotland  had  been  left  to  fight  her  own  battle.  The  northern 
English  Jacobites  cruised  about  Northumberland,  and  heard  at 
Hexham  that  "  Kenmuie's  on  and  awa'."  The  Viscount  Kenmure 
was  a  Galloway  Gordon  of  an  unlucky  house,  always  attached  to 
the  Kirk  when  the  Crown  was  in  the  ascendant,  and  to  the  Crown 
when  its  rightful  owner  was  "  across  the  water." 

With  Kenmure  were  the  Earls  of  Carnwath,  Nithsdale,  and  Win- 
toun.  Kenmure  raised  the  standard  at  Moffat, — the  Royal  Scottish 
arms,  with  the  mottoes  "  No  Union  "  and  "  For  our  Wronged  King 
and  Oppressed  Country."  On  October  13  Kenmure  found  that 
Annandale  had  anticipated  him  in  occupying  Dumfries,  while  the 
Rev.  Mr  Hepburn  had  been  hovering  about  with  300  of  that  branch 
of  the  Remnant  who  were  called  Hebronites.  But  Hepburn's  cam- 
paign soon  ended,  and  the  Cameronians  hated  James  even  more 
than  "  the  present  idolatrous  occupant  on  the  throne,"  George. 
Kenmure's  troop  of  some  200,  mainly  gentlemen,  behaved  more 
orderly  on  the  march  than  the  Master  of  Sinclair's  convivial  com- 
mand. They  moved  towards  Hawick,  but  Forster  summoned  them 
by  way  of  Langholme  to  meet  him  at  Rothbury.  We  learn  about 
their  doings  from  a  scoundrel  named  the  Rev.  Robert  Patten,  who, 
having  been  Forster's  chaplain  and  recruiting-sergeant,  turned  his 
coat,  saved  his  neck,  and  wrote  '  The  History  of  the  Late  Rebellion ' 
( 1 7 1 7).  On  October  1 9  the  Galloway  and  Northumberland  Jacobites 
met  at  Rothbury  :  among  Forster's  gentlemen  was  one  worthy  of 
note — the  gay,  loyal,  brave,  witty,  and  learned  Charles  Wogan.''^ 
He  was  of  the  same  Norman-Irish  family  as  the  Wogan  who  rode 
through  Cromwellian  England  to  join  Glencairn,  and  who  rescued 
Charles  H.  at  the  gate  of  Worcester.     Charles  Wogan  was  a  man 


196  mar's  position. 

of  taste  and  of  excellent  education :  he  it  was  who  introduced 
Pope,  a  Catholic  like  himself,  to  the  London  wits ;  and  for  months 
Charles,  with  Colonel  Oxburgh,  James  Talbot,  called  from  his  black 
complexion  "The  Crow,"  and  his  own  brother,  Nicholas  Wogan,  a 
reckless  lad  of  fifteen,  had  been  riding  about  the  country  arranging 
plans  in  Jacobite  houses. 

The  two  brave  companies  of  gentlemen  could  do  little,  wher^ 
they  united,  without  more  infantry  than  the  Rev.  Mr  Patten  had 
collected  among  the  "  Keelmen,"  who,  at  Newcastle,  entertained 
Jacobite  sentiments  long  after  CuUoden.  Mar  was  obliged  to  try 
to  send  reinforcements  from  his  dissipated  force  to  join  Kenmure 
and  Forster,  whom  we  must  leave  expecting  their  northern  allies, 
while  we  return  to  Mar  at  Perth. 

On  October  4  we  find  him  proud  of  the  Master  of  Sinclair's 
Bruntisland  raid, — "  a  new  use  for  a  party  of  horse,"  to  take  a  ship. 
He  writes  thus  to  Alexander  Gordon,  General  of  a  Highland  host 
still  hovering  on  the  braes  of  Glenorchy,  with  an  idea  of  attacking 
Inveraray.  "  I  will  not  begin  with  burning  houses,"  writes  Mar ; 
it  was  a  measure  which  aroused  bad  feeling  when  Argyll,  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Covenant,  fired  "  the  bonny  House  o'  Airlie."^ 
Gordon  is  to  threaten  to  burn  Inveraray  Castle  (not  the  existing 
castle,  which  is  more  recent),  but  must  not  carry  out  the  menace 
till  he  receives  Mar's  permission.^*'  But  Mar  learned  that  through 
the  dilatory  arrival  of  recruits  to  join  Glengarry,  Inveraray  was  now 
a  hard  nut  to  crack.  However  (October  4),  his  own  army  was 
receiving  regular  pay  to  the  extent  of  one  shilling  and  ninepence 
per  man  weekly,  and  three  daily  loaves  or  an  equivalent  in  meal. 
Argyll's  force  in  Stirling,  he  says,  was  not  more  highly  remunerated. 
He  hoped  that  Gordon  would  arm  his  body  with  the  weapons  at 
Inveraray,  and  feared  that  Lochiel,  Appin,  and  Lochnell  were  in 
treaty  to  surrender  to  Argyll.  Lochiel,  however,  protested  his 
loyalty  in  a  letter  to  Gordon,  but  his  clan  were  daunted  by  the 
garrison  of  Fort  William  ;  and,  in  Mull,  Maclean  of  Lochbuy  would 
allow  none  of  his  men  to  join,  apparently  from  dislike  of  Sir  John 
Maclean  of  Dowart. 

On  October  7  Mar  had  ciphered  letters  from  James,  brought 
from  France  by  Ogilvy  of  Boyne,  a  descendant  of  one  of  the 
Queen's  Maries,  Mary  Beaton.  Mar  expected  James  to  land  at 
once  near  "  Dumbarton,  about  Loch  Long,"  which,  as  he  justly 
remarked,  made  it  highly  necessary  for  Gordon  to  finish  the  busi- 


MACKINTOSH   CROSSES   THE   FH^TH.  197 

ness  in  Argyllshire.  Otherwise,  if  James  landed  in  the  west,  the 
;^i 00,000  set  on  his  head  would  speedily  be  earned.  Meanwhile 
(October  8)  Mar  was  sending  2000  men  to  cross  from  Bruntisland 
to  Leith  to  join  Forster  and  Kenmure,  while  he  with  his  whole 
force  would  make  a  feint  at  Stirling  to  amuse  Argyll  and  conceal 
the  movement  on  Leith.  Why  should  he  not  have  "discussed 
Argyll "  earlier,  instead  of  contenting  himself  with  a  feint  ?  Prob- 
ably the  embargo  on  James's  ships  in  France  left  him  without 
sufficient  ammunition.  Mar,  whether  from  his  own  wit  or  on  the 
advice  of  others,  had  elaborated  a  strategic  scheme  which  looked 
very  well  on  paper.  Far  to  his  right,  Gordon,  with  the  Camerons, 
Glengarry,  Clanranald,  and  Breadalbane's  contingent,  were  to  secure 
Argyll  and  the  south-west  coast,  and  contain  the  forces  in  Dum- 
barton Castle.  On  his  left  he  would  push  2000  men  across  the 
Firth  of  Forth  :  they  would  join  the  fox-hunters  of  Kenmure  and 
Forster,  and  Argyll  would  be  cerne  in  Stirling.  But  Gordon's 
movement  was  paralysed  by  the  long  delays  of  the  Camerons  and 
of  Breadalbane  ;  and  the  story  of  Mackintosh  of  Borlum,  command- 
ing the  army  that  invaded  the  Lothians,  has  now  to  be  told. 

The  crossing  of  the  Firth  by  a  large  body  of  men  in  small  boats, 
in  face  of  the  men-of-war  which  cruised  in  the  Firth,  was  managed 
with  unusual  adroitness.  Sinclair  was  consulted,  and  produced  a 
Mr  Harry  Crawford,  who  undertook  to  collect  fishing-boats.  The 
Master  himself  was  to  lead  eighty  of  his  Fifeshire  horse  through  the 
towns  on  the  coast  of  the  country,  proclaiming  James  and  seizing 
arms,  and  to  return  to  Perth.  His  men  were  totally  reckless  of 
discipline,  thought  him  cowardly  because  he  tried  to  make  them 
stand  sentries  in  rotation,  got  drunk  if  ever  he  lodged  them  in  a 
town,  and  straggled  away  from  the  Abbey  of  Pittenweem,  which 
still  afforded  shelter.  The  Master  refused  to  join  Mackintosh,  on 
his  request,  at  the  Castle  of  Bruntisland,  as  Mackintosh  had  no  right 
to  give  him  orders,  and  he  might  encounter  Argyll's  dreaded 
dragoons  on  the  way.  He  supposed  that  the  flotilla  of  Mackintosh 
was  to  start  from  Bruntisland ;  and  he  was  intended,  like  the  rest 
of  the  world,  to  believe  this,  because  Mackintosh's  plan  was  to  draw 
the  British  warships  thither,  and  keep  them  wasting  ammunition  on 
Bruntisland  Castle,  while  his  force  was  really  crossing  the  breadth 
of  the  Firth  farther  to  the  east  by  night.  The  men's  advance 
to  the  coast  had  been  veiled  by  a  cavalry  screen  under  Erskine  of 
Alva  and  Sir  James  Sharp,  grandson  of  the  murdered  Archbishop. 


198  ARGYLL   SAVES   EDINBURGH. 

Mackintosh's  force  started  from  Pittenweem,  Elie,  Crail,  and  the 
other  little  coast  towns  of  Fife  in  the  nights  of  October  1 2  and  1 3^ 
and  crossed  the  distance  of  some  seventeen  miles  to  the  Lothian 
shore  in  safety.  But  a  number  of  the  boats  which  started  latest 
were  driven  back  to  Fife,  while  young  Strathmore,  "a  schoolboy," 
says  Sinclair,  was  obliged  to  land  his  men  on  the  May  rock,  where 
he  behaved  admirably,  and  made  a  good  resistance,  though  his 
Highlanders  were  unruly.  He  finally  succeeded  in  regaining  the 
Fife  coast,  and  rejoined  Mar. 

About  1600  men  were  now  under  Mackintosh,  and  Mar,  writing 
to  Harry  Straiton  (October  13),  hoped  that  they  would  at  once 
advance  south-west  to  join  the  Galloway  and  Northumberland 
gentlemen.  Such  were  his  last  orders  to  Mackintosh ;  but  Mar 
feared  that  they  would  attack  Leith  and  Edinburgh,  and  be 
overtaken  by  Argyll.^''  Sinclair  says  that  Mackintosh  "had  no 
positive  orders "  (which  is  contradicted  by  Mar's  letter  of  the 
moment),  that  Forster  had  but  fifty  gentlemen  and  could  be  of 
no  use,  and  that  Mackintosh,  "  having  nothing  else  to  do,  thought 
he  might  go  in  his  rambles  to  the  citadel  of  Leith,  a  place  he  had 
heard  Mar  mention "  in  a  casual  way  ^  Sinclair  states  Mackin- 
tosh's force  at  only  iioo  Highlanders.  Meanwhile  the  Provost  of 
Edinburgh  put  his  civic  forces  in  a  posture  of  defence  and  sent 
a  despatch  to  Argyll,  who  instantly  lent  him  500  dragoons  and 
mounted  foot.  His  men  reached  the  West  Port  at  ten  o'clock 
at  night,  while  Mackintosh's  were  approaching  the  East  Port,  and 
the  Duke,  arriving  in  person,  was  met  by  the  Whig  levies  of  the 
Lothians.  Mackintosh  turned  tail,  and,  entering  Leith,  seized  what 
remained  of  the  ancient  works  of  Cromwell's  fort  there,  which  he 
put  in  a  position  of  defence.''''^  The  Duke  saw  that  his  regulars 
were  not  numerous  enough  to  storm  a  fort  held  by  Highlanders, 
and  of  the  loyal  militia  he  probably  had  his  own  opinion.  After 
examining  the  position  he  returned  to  Edinburgh,  and  the  High- 
landers stole  off  to  Seton  House,  where  they  received  reinforce- 
ments from  the  other  side  of  the  Firth. 

According  to  Rae,  Argyll  at  this  time  commanded  not  more  than 
2000  men  in  all,  yet  saved  Edinburgh,  where  the  Jacobite  advocates 
appear  to  have  kept  quiet.  This  was  the  most  that  he  could  do, 
especially  as  news  arrived  that  Mar,  with  his  whole  force,  was 
marching  against  Stirling. 

At  Seton  House  Mackintosh  was  perfectly  safe,  though  observed : 


A   FEINT   ON    STIRLING.  I99 

the  place  was  strong  both  by  the  nature  of  the  surrounding  ground 
and  by  the  fortifications  of  several  centuries.  On  October  1 7  the 
Duke  rushed  back  to  Stirling ;  but  Mar  was  not  the  man  to  have 
taken  advantage  of  his  absence.  Sinclair  gives  the  usual  sardonic 
account  of  the  state  of  things  at  Perth.  Nobody  knew  anything : 
hopes  and  fears  lived  on  rumour.  James  Keith,  later  the  famous 
Prussian  field-marshal,  and  brother  of  the  Earl  Marischal,  was  with 
this  inglorious  army.  He  galloped  along  the  line  announcing  that 
Sir  William  Windham  had  surprised  Bristol,  and  that  Sir  William 
Blackett  had  seized  Berwick  and  Newcastle.  Blackett,  a  man  of 
influence  at  Newcastle,  had  "  kept  out  of  the  way,"  says  Patten, 
while  Windham,  a  victim  of  Maclean's  betrayal,  had  surrendered 
to  the  law.  Mar  called  a  council,  read  "  two  dismal  letters  "  from 
Mackintosh,  and  declared  that  "he  gave  him  over  for  lost."  They 
could  do  nothing  for  him  except  by  a  feint  at  Stirling,  recalling 
Argyll.  Sinclair  said  that  Mackintosh  could  hold  out  if  he  had 
powder.  "Mar,  not  knowing  what  powder  he  had,  since  he  had 
given  him  none,  would  not  hear  me  and  made  no  answer."  '^ 
Sinclair  made  himself  as  disagreeable  as  he  knew  how  to  do  on 
the  march  to  Auchterarder. 

Next  day  the  Jacobite  horse  camped  in  great  disorder  at  Dun- 
blane. Masters  and  servants  were  scattered  here  and  there  in 
the  dark,  without  orders,  without  sentries,  six  miles  from  Stirling. 
A  handful  of  Argyll's  dragoons,  beating  up  their  quarters,  could 
have  destroyed  them, — Drummond,  Linlithgow.  Southesk,  Marischal, 
Kilsyth,  Stirling  of  Keir,  and  all.  "  Marischal  was  the  only  one 
of  them  who  seemed  to  have  reason," — he  had,  indeed,  too  much 
for  a  party  politician.  He  remarked,  with  his  usual  humour,  that 
he  knew  Argyll :  Argyll  was  absent  from  Stirling,  and  would 
infallibly  have  ordered  Witham,  his  second  in  command,  not 
to  move  a  foot  till  his  return.  Presently  Gordon  of  Glenbucket 
came  up  with  300  light-footed  Highlanders,  sorely  fatigued,  their 
arms  "poisoned  with  the  rain."  Sinclair  gave  Drummond,  who 
was  in  chief  command  of  the  horse,  an  elementary  lecture  on 
the  conduct  of  retreats,  and  implored  him  to  put  them  in  a 
position  either  to  fight  or  withdraw  on  necessity.  But  prob- 
ably the  Earl  Marischal  went  to  bed,  strong  in  his  knowledge 
of  Argyll's  character.  The  whole  force  was  armed  merely  with 
pistols,  and  must  have  perished  if  that  happened  which  was  not 
likely  to  happen — if  they  were  surprised  by  a  hundred  dragoons. 


200  MAR  ADVANCES  AND   RETIRES. 

Meanwhile  Mar  advanced  as  far  as  Ardoch,  where  there  is  a 
remarkably  fine  Roman  camp.  Hamilton,  according  to  Sinclair, 
had  advised  marching  to  the  mile-long  causeway  which  leads  to 
Stirling  Bridge.  In  this  defile  the  Duke  could  not  attack  them ; 
Mar  might  call  up  the  western  clans  from  Dumbarton,  fourteen 
miles  away;  they  would  be  far  too  strong  for  Argyll,  and  would 
stop  Evans's  dragoons  from  Ireland  from  joining  him.  But  Mar 
knew  very  well  that  the  western  clans  were  far  away  from  Dumbarton, 
in  a  deplorably  perplexed  condition.^^  Mar,  to  be  sure,  had  news 
of  Ormonde's  landing  in  England,  but  in  England  Ormonde,  we 
know,  found  not  a  friend.  Things  were  not  so  forward  as 
Hamilton  seems  to  have  supposed.  Mar,  of  course,  shufiled  out 
of  the  attempt  suggested  by  Hamilton  and  threw  the  blame  on 
his  brother-in-law.  Sir  Hugh  Paterson,  upon  whom,  says  the  Master, 
"  he  has  put  ane  idiot  hump  -  backed  sister  "  !  To  Forster  he 
explained  his  conduct  by  his  want  of  supplies. 

After  these  excursions  and  alarms  Mar  led  his  horse  and  foot 
back  to  Perth,  and  this  was  the  end  of  a  situation  whence  only 
Mar  could  have  allowed  Argyll  to  escape.  Mackintosh  had 
frightened  away,  on  the  field  of  Prestonpans,  such  Whig  forces 
as  advanced  against  Seton  House.  He  then  decamped,  and  rapidly 
marched  to  Kelso,  was  met  at  Ednam  Bridge  by  Forster  and 
Kenmure,  and  so  occupied  Kelso  on  October  22. 

Sinclair  gives  personal  reasons  for  Mar's  dilatoriness  ;  but  it  is 
not  easy  to  believe  that  he  could  have  crossed  the  Forth  where 
Prince  Charles  did,  by  the  fords  of  Frew,  "  then  low  and  passable," 
for  the  weather  was,  in  fact,  extremely  wet. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   VIII. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i,  287. 

^  MSS.  of  J.  Eliot   Hodgkin,  Esq.,  p.   225;   Historical  Manuscripts  Com- 
mission, XV.  2. 

3  Stuart  Papers,  i.  336,  337. 
*  Stuart  P.ipers,  i.  349. 
^  Tindal,  iv.  436,  note. 
'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  357. 
'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  348,  349. 


NOTES.  201 

*  Stuart  Papers,  i.  357. 
"  Stuart  Papers,  i.  371. 

"  Stuart  Papers,  i.  375. 

^^  Salomon  Transcripts.     French  Archives,  cited  in  Stuart  Papers,  i.,  p.  Ixxiii. 

^-  Berwick,  Memoires,  ///  supra,  p.  231. 

^^  Memoires,  Petitot  et  Monmerque,  Ixvi.  246. 

'*  Mar  Papers.     Mar  to  Straiton,  October  12. 

^*  Mathieson,  Scotland  and  the  Union,  p.  298,  note  2. 

'*  Hill  Burton,  viii.  260-284;  I^^<^>  History  of  the  Rebellion,  1718,  p.  187. 

"  Stuart  Papers,  i.  520-525. 

''  Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  pp.  ix-xii. 

1'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  375,  376. 

-°  Stuart  Papers,  i.  382. 

^'  Lord  Mahon,  who  never  understood  this  affair,  did  not  translate,  or  even 
add,  "to  Nicholas,"  that  is  "to  Scotland." — Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  p.  xii ; 
Stuart  Papers,  i.,  pp.  Ixxv  and  383. 

^  See,  in  my  '  Historical  Mysteries'  (1904),  "  Queen  Oglethorpe." 

■^  Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  p.  xv. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  384. 

■■^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  386. 

^  Berwick,  Memoires,  ut  supra,  pp.  233,  234. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  387. 

28  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  188. 

■^'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  389. 

•"'  Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  pp.  xvii,  xviii. 

^'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  391. 

*-  Stuart  Papers,  i.  400. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  415. 

^■*  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  189,  190. 

^'  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  194,  195;  Townshend  MSS.,  p.  161  ; 
Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  xi.  4. 

•'"  Stuart  Papers,  i.  521. 

^^  Hill  Burton,  viii.  270. 

^  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  186. 

^'  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  208-211  ;  Lockhart,  i.  494,  498. 

^  Patten,  History  of  the  Late  Rebellion,  pp.  4-6  :   17 17. 

^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  69-76. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  423,  424. 

'^  Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  pp.  xxxiii,  xxxiv. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  427,  428. 

■**  Stuart  Papers,  i.  439-44I. 

••*  Stuart  Papers,  i.  445. 

■*^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  452,  481,  534. 

*^  Berwick  speaks  of  the  traitor  Maclean  as  "Colonel  Maclean."  There  was  a 
Sir  Alexander  Maclean,  a  colonel  (Stuart  Papers,  i.  75,  204),  who  served  with 
Villars  in  1705.  I  find  no  other  Colonel  Maclean  in  French  service  since  1692 
lill  that  time,  but  Sir  Alexander  may  have  died,  or  left  the  service,  before  1715. 

^^  S.iint-Simon,  Memoires,  xiii.  401-408:  1829. 

"*  November  12,  1715.     Stuart  Papers.    France,  vol.  160.    MSS.  Record  Office. 

*^  Berwick,  tit  supra,  p.  252. 

''•^  Trial  of  John,  Master  of  Sinclair.     Sir  Walter  Scott.     Roxburghe  Club,  1828. 


202  NOTES. 

^  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  235,  236. 
^  MDCCCV.     Reprinted  by  James  Dennistoun  :  Glasgow,  1834. 
^5  Patten,  Historj'  of  the  Late  Rebellion,  pp.  26-37. 
^  Original  Letters  relating  to  the  Rebellion,  1 730,  pp.  48,  49. 
■"  Mar  Papers,  Hill  Burton,  viii.  287,  note. 
^*  Sinclair,  p.  129. 

^'  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  260-262  ;  Sinclair,  p.  129, 
^''  Sinclair,  p.  131. 

"  Sinclair,  pp.    139,   140.      Mar  to  Gordon :   Perth,   October    16.      Original 
Letters,  pp.  83-S6. 

Berwick's  Naturalisation. 

[MS.  Carte  209.] 

FoL  6.  The  case. 

His  Grace  the  duke  of  Berwick  a  naturall  borne  subject  of  England  makes 
suite  to  the  King  for  his  Ma"*'  Licence  to  be  naturalized  in  France, 
and  caus'd  a  draught  of  a  grant  to  be  prepar'd  for  that  purpose,  which 
I  have  perused.  And  the  Question  is  demanded,  whether  such  a  grant 
can  work  any  wrong  to  the  King,  or  tend  to  the  diminution  of  his 
prerogative  or  to  discharge  the  duke,  from  the  service  &  duty,  he  oweth 
to  the  Crowne  of  England  ? 

I  am.  My  Lord,  with  humble  submission  to  your  LordP^  longer  experience,  & 
deeper  Judgment,  of  opinion  that  the  duke  of  Berwick's  requesting  such  a  grant 
is  now,  &  at  all  tymes  hereafter,  willbe  taken,  as  an  instance  of  his  duty  to  his 
soueraigne  &  of  his  care  not  to  Comitt  any  act  that  may  disable  him  from  render- 
ing the  service  (he  is  bound  to  do)  by  his  naturall  allegiance  to  his  Majestic,  And 
that  such  a  grant  will  work  no  wrong  to  the  King,  nor  lessen  his  prerogative,  or 
discharge  y"  duke  from  his  Allegiance,  i*'-  Because  the  King  Cannot  do  any  act 
whatsoeuer,  which  Can  debarre  or  hinder  him  from  the  service  of  his  Subject. 
Fol  6*.  2'y-  Because  the  ligeance  of  the  duke  is  naturall,  absolute,  pure,  &  indefinite, 

&  is  due  to  the  King  by  nature  and  birthritjht,  &  Nemo  potest  Exuere  suam 
ligeanciam  is  a  setled  maxime ;  3'^-  because  upon  the  will  of  y"  soueraigne  and 
the  obedience  of  the  subject  the  governm*  depends. 

All  this  is  verified  by  the  Resolutions  given  in  the  famous  Case  of  Robert  Calvin 
who  was  borne  in  Scotland  after  the  descent  of  the  Crowne  of  England  to  King 
James  the  first,  called  the  Post  nati :  &  in  Doctor  Stories  case  :  so  I  thinke,  the 
Grant  as  it  is  in  substance,  ma^  passe,  but  yet  (it  being  a  case  primx^  impressionis 
before  yo'  Lordship)  with  such  a  saving,  as  you  shall  see  in  the  draught  of  the 
warrant  heerwith  sent  you,  My  Lord,  by 

Yo'  lordP*  most  obedient  servant 

RoBT.  Power. 

{Endorsed  by  the        Power's  Opinion.     To  the  Right  Honorable  My  Lord,  the 
same  haud.]  Lord  Caryll,  the  King  &  Queen's  principall  Secretary  of 

State. 

Fol.  7.  Woe  are  graciously  pleased   to  Name  &  appoint  you  to  be  our  Councell""  at 

law  in  our  Kingdomes  of  England  and  Ireland  hcarby  Granting  vnto  you,  all 


NOTES.  203 

such  profitts,  privilcdges  &  aduantages,  which   to  the  said  offices  &  places  do 
belong,   or  which  are  iheerwith  usually  taken,   held,  or  Enjoyed,   Given,   &c., 

*  18  >«.    1704.  [*  Added  6y 

a  second 

To  our  Trustie  &  welbeloved  subject  Rob*  Power  of  the  Middle  ^"""'•l 

temple  Esq''-  Barister  at  law,  now  Residing  att  S'  Germainc 

en  Lay. 

[Endorsed. 1        A  draught  of  a  warr*  from  y^  King  for  making  Robert  Power  his 
Councell  at  law. 
And  this  warrant  ought  to  be  dated  a  day  before  the  date  of  the 
warrant  for  his  Grace  the  duke  of  Berwick's  licence. 

Our  Will  and  pleasure  is,  that  you  forthwith  prepare  a  bill  for  our   Royall  Fot.  9. 

signature  to  pass  our  Great  Scale  of  England,  containing  a  Grant  from  us  to  our 

Right  Trustie,  &  entierly  Beloved  Cosin  &  Councell''  James  duke  of  Berwick,  an 

naturall  borne  subject,  of  our  full  &  free  leave  &  Licence  to  be  Naturalized  in  the 

Kingdome  of  France,  And  to  take,  Receive,  possess  &  Enjoy  all  &  singular  such 

benefitts,  freedomes,  Immunities  priviledges  &  advantages  whatsoeuer,  which  are 

thereunto  Incident  &  belonging,  &  which  in  the  like  case  are  usually,  or  ought  to 

be,  taken,  had,  acquired,  or  Enjoyed,  And  you  are  to  Insert  in  our  said  Grant, 

all  such  Clauses,  as  you  shall  thinke  Necessary,  for  Rendering  the  same.  Good, 

fume,  &  effectual!  in  the  law,   to,  &  for  him  the  said  James  Duke  of  Berwick, 

With  a  saving  neverthelesse  unto  us  o''  heires  &  successors  of  our  Royall  preroga-  Fol.  9  b. 

live  in  exacting,  commanding  &  requireing  the  service  of  him  the  s**  Duke  of 

Berwick  in  all  tymes,  &  places,  &  upon  all  occasions,  when  &  as  often,  as  wee 

shall  thinke  fitt,  w'^''  he  is  to  performe  vnto  us  our  heires  and  successors  attending 

to  the  indispensible  duty  of  his  allegiance,  &  the  Inseparable  right  of  our  Crownc, 

Giuen,  &c.,  *  the  19  ya7i^y  1704.  ["Added by 

same  second 

To  our  Trustie  &  welbeloved  R.  P.  Esq'-  our  Councell  Learned  ^^"^ 
in  the  Law. 

[Endorsed  in         A  draught  of  the  King's  warrant  for  preparing  a  licence  for  the 
satne  hand.'\  duke  of  Berwick  to  bee  Naturalized. 

[Another  endorsement,  in  second  hand.  ]         *  19  Jan.  1704.  [» sk  MS., 

21  Oct.  1703.  both  dates 

'    **  'Mritten  by 

the  same 
second  hand 
as  above.] 


204 


CHAPTER    IX. 

THE   END    OF    THE   RISING    OF    1715. 

Leaving  Mar  comfortably  established  in  Perth,  we  follow  the 
desperate  fortunes  of  the  gentlemen  who  met  at  Kelso,  and  there 
awaited  the  arrival  of  Mackintosh,  His  force  appeared,  draggled 
and  weary,  but  full  of  fight.  Indeed,  had  Mackintosh  commanded 
the  little  army  instead  of  the  futile  Forster,  to  whom  James  had 
sent  a  commission,  the  doomed  company  would  have  had  less 
disastrous  fortunes.  On  Sunday,  October  23,  Patten,  chaplain 
and  aide-de-camp  of  Forster  (the  latter  office  he  shared  with 
Charles  Wogan),  read  the  English  Service  and  preached  in  the 
parish  kirk  of  Kelso.  The  text  was  Deut.  xxi.  17,  "The  right 
of  the  Firstborn  is  his."  Many  Catholic  gentlemen  attended,  and 
said  "  they  approved  very  well  of  our  Liturgy,  which  till  then  they 
had  never  heard."  ^  The  Catholics  were  more  staunch  than  the 
Anglican  Tories,  of  whom  not  many  are  said  to  have  been  very 
forward  except  in  drinking  toasts.  The  Highlanders  "  behaved 
very  decently  and  reverently,  and  answered  the  responses  accord- 
ing to  the  rubric,"  coming  from  a  district  which  Presbyterianism 
had  not  yet  conquered.  A  manifesto  was  read,  sent  by  Mar, 
denouncing  the  Union  and  popery.  The  Kelso  people  shouted, 
"  No  Union  !  No  Malt  Tax !  No  Salt  Tax ! "  but  did  not  other- 
wise aid  the  expedition. 

Patten,  like  Homer,  gives  a  catalogue  of  the  chief  persons  en- 
gaged. A  son  of  the  Lord  Basil  Hamilton,  so  noted  before  his 
early  death,  led  Kenmure's  first  troop,  Kcnmure  being  "  utterly  a 
stranger  to  all  military  affairs."  In  a  more  complete  contemporary 
list  we  find  the  unexpected  name  of  Maclellan  of  Barscobe,  repre- 
senting the  Covenanting  Barscobe  of  1679.     The  Merse  troop  was 


DISSENSIONS   OF   THE   BORDKR   JACOBITES.  20$ 

under  the  Hon.  James  Hume,  a  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Home, 
himself  a  prisoner  in  Edinburgh  Castle.  The  Earl  of  Wintoun  com- 
manded the  third,  a  man  of  a  strange  private  history,  and  regarded 
as  hardly  more  than  half-witted,  though  presently  he  exhibited 
more  common-sense  than  his  associates.  The  brother  of  Lockhart 
of  Carnwath,  a  brave  and  handsome  young  man,  whose  death, 
shot  as  a  prisoner,  was  one  of  the  most  pathetic  events  of  the 
Rising,  commanded  the  fourth  troop.  The  leaders  of  the  High- 
land contingent,  in  addition  to  Brigadier  Mackintosh,  a  veteran 
soldier  of  fortune,  and  his  brother,  were  Lord  Nairne,  a  brother 
of  the  Duke  of  Atholl ;  his  son,  the  Master  of  Nairne ;  and  Major 
Nairne  of  the  same  house,  who  was  shot  with  young  Lockhart. 
There  was  also  the  Duke  of  Atholl's  son,  Lord  Charles  Murray, 
who  displayed  great  gallantry,  marching  in  the  kilt  ("without 
breeches")  at  the  head  of  his  little  regiment. 

Among  the  English,  the  Earl  of  Derwentwater,  with  his  brother 
Charles  Radcliffe,  were  the  most  distinguished,  and  most  justly 
popular  for  their  many  virtues.  Lord  Widrington  did  not  retain 
the  good  opinion  of  his  comrades.  Two  troops,  led  by  John 
Hunter  and  a  brother  of  Douglas  of  Fingland,  were  looked  on 
rather  as  mosstroopers  and  "  midnight  traders  in  horses " ;  a 
Borderer  named  "  Luck  in  a  Bag "  was  notorious  among  this 
class,  a  survival  of  old  Border  days.  Nicholas  Wogan  led  the 
fifth  troop  :  he  survived  to  lose  an  arm  at  Fontenoy,  in  spite  of 
which  he  joined  Prince  Charles  in  the  'Forty-five. 

They  all  dallied  in  Kelso  till  October  27,  watched  from  Wooler, 
near  Flodden  Edge,  by  General  Carpenter,  with  Cobham's,  Moles- 
worth's,  and  Churchill's  dragoons  and  Hotham's  foot.  Knowing 
that  Carpenter  was  at  hand  and  about  to  march  on  Kelso,  Kenmure 
called  a  council,  when  Wintoun  earnestly  maintained  that  they 
should  move  to  the  west  of  Scotland  and  join  hands  with  the 
clans  in  the  rear  of  Argyll.  The  party  was  in  the  same  situation 
as  the  Earl  of  Argyll's  force  in  1685.  The  English  had  one  set 
of  views,  like  Argyll's  Lowlanders,  to  go  south  and  join  the  Lanca- 
shire Jacobites,  just  as  Polwarth  urged  Argyll  to  join  the  western 
Whigs.  The  Highlanders  were  as  eager,  and  more  wisely,  to  unite 
with  their  own  people,  in  place  of  losing  themselves  in  England 
and  trusting  to  allies  who  would  not  come  in.  Others  advised 
to  discuss  Carpenter's  weak  and  wearied  force  at  once,  to  which 


206  THE   BORDER  JACOBITES   ENTER   ENGLAND. 

the  Highlanders  would  have  had  no  objection.  In  fact,  the 
confused  counsels  ended  in  aimless  tacking  about,  first  to  Jed- 
burgh, till  October  29,  when  the  English  prevailed  on  them  to 
cross  the  Border,  and  Hunter  was  despatched  into  Tynedale  with 
his  mosstroopers.  But  the  Highlanders  declined  to  move,  Hunter 
was  recalled,  and  they  strolled  to  Hawick,  while  Wintoun  again 
displayed  his  unwonted  wisdom  and  recommended  his  plan  of 
falling  on  the  rear  of  Argyll.  At  Hawick  there  arose  disorder  and 
false  alarms ;  but  they  moved  towards  Dumfries,  where  they  might 
have  taken  large  supplies  of  provisions  and  arms,  and  advanced 
to  the  west  coast  of  Scotland ;  but  the  English  boasted  of  letters 
from  Lancashire,  which  only  awaited  their  arrival  to  raise  20,000 
men.  The  English  were  obeyed,  but  500  Highlanders  went  home 
in  small  parties  :  the  rest  were  allured  on  by  promises  of  good 
pay,  good  quarters,  and  the  prospect  of  loot.  A  letter  from  Mar, 
of  October  21,  made  it  seem  very  doubtful  whether  the  clans 
were  at  Dumbarton.  At  the  same  time,  Mar  said  it  would  be  "a 
great  service  to  him  "  if  they  would  join  him,  for  Argyll  had  now 
been  reinforced.  Thus  Mar  left  everything  to  Forster's  discretion, 
and,  as  soon  as  they  crossed  the  Border,  the  incapable  Forster 
was  in  chief  command.  So  he  crossed,  the  die  was  cast,  and 
only  sheer  ruin  lay  before  them.  They  went  to  meet  it  as  gaily 
as  Hamilton's  army  at  the  time  of  the  Engagement,  and  found  it 
at  the  same  place.  Marlborough  was  consulted  by  the  English 
Ministry,  and  it  is  told  that  he  put  his  finger  on  Preston  on  the 
map  and  said,  "  You  will  take  them  there." 

After  resting  a  day  at  Brampton  the  force  approached  Penrith, 
where  they  frightened  away  a  huge  mob  of  militia  and  loyal 
amateurs,  14,000  men  it  is  said,  who  "retreated"  under  Londsdale 
in  as  many  directions  as  individual  taste  preferred,  leaving  many 
of  their  arms  behind  them.  Luckily  for  Howard  of  Corbie  Castle, 
he  was  under  ward  in  Carlisle  Castle,  and  thus,  like  his  descendant 
in  1745,  escaped  any  share  in  the  transactions.  Curwen  of  Work- 
ington was  equally  fortunate.  On  November  5  they  left  Appleby 
for  Kendal,  and  on  the  7th  reached  Lancaster,  where  the  ladies 
were  pretty  and  kind,  and  where  they  made  two  recruits,  were 
joined  by  five  gentlemen,  and  seized  six  ship  guns.  No  Protes- 
tants were  joining.  "Sorry  to  part  with  their  new  loves,"  says 
a  contemporary  account,  the  gay  adventurers  moved  on  to  fresh 
conquests   at    Preston,    the    objective    being    Manchester,   a    town 


JACOBITES   AT   PRESTON— WILLS   ADVANCING.  20/ 

zealous  for  the  cause.  They  entered  Preston  on  the  loth,  and 
were  joined  by  two  Protestant  gentlemen,  Townley  and  Shuttle- 
worth,  and  by  several  Catholics.  Preston  was  the  Capua  of  the 
adventure.  "The  Ladys  in  this  toune  are  so  very  beautyfuU  and 
so  richly  attired,  that  the  Gentlemen  Soldiers  from  Wednesday  to 
Saturday  minded  nothing  but  courting  and  feasting,"  says  a  report 
by  one  Clarke.^ 

This  may  account  for  the  indolent  inaction  at  Preston.  Mean- 
while Carpenter,  deceived  by  the  route  of  the  Jacobites,  was  at 
Newcastle,  whence  he  marched  to  Bernard  Castle.  The  Cavaliers 
thought  him  negligible,  and  never  troubled  themselves  about  General 
Wills,  commanding  at  Cheshire,  who  had  Pitt's  horse,  Wynn's, 
Honeywood's,  Dormer's,  Newton's,  and  Stanhope's  dragoons,  and 
Fane's  and  Sabine's  foot,  with  Preston's,  in  which  the  Master  of 
Sinclair  had  served  abroad.  These  were  drawn  into  Warrington, 
and  left  a  regiment  of  foot  to  watch  Manchester,  while  Wills 
advanced  on  Wigan,  whence  he  sent  an  express  to  hurry  on 
Carpenter:  he  reached  Wigan  on  November  lo.  Of  Wills's  move- 
ments Forster  knew  nothing,  or  did  not  act  on  his  knowledge ; 
Patten  says  that  he  depended  on  the  Lancashire  gentry  for  intelli- 
gence, and  received  none.  A  Jacobite  officer  of  the  Merse,  in 
his  journal,  tells  another  tale.  On  the  loth,  apparently,  Forster 
heard  of  Wills's  advance,  but  would  not  go  towards  Manchester  to 
meet  him.  The  charms  of  the  Preston  ladies  were  so  great  that 
the  leaders  let  everything  fare  as  it  would.^  On  November  ir, 
at  night,  says  the  Merse  officer,  Forster  had  a  letter  from  a  noble 
Lord,  with  full  intelligence  of  Wills's  movements.  Forster  "  seemed 
dispirited,  and  went  to  bed."  His  officers  determined  to  send  a 
scouting  party  towards  Wigan,  and  to  man  the  Darwin  and  Ribble 
bridges,  but  he  countermanded  the  orders. 

Preston  was  then  a  little  town  with  a  market-place,  church,  and  a 
few  streets,  entered  from  Wigan  by  the  Ribble  Bridge,  whence  a 
road  through  the  fields  led  to  Church  Street,  and  so  to  the  market- 
place. At  the  entrance  of  Church  Street  were  two  high  strong 
houses,  of  which  one  belonged  to  Sir  Henry  Haughton,  an  import- 
ant position.  There  were  three  other  "outgaits"  from  the  town, 
northwards  and  in  other  directions.  All  were  unguarded,  for,  on 
Saturday  morning,  November  1 2,  Forster  was  just  about  to  lead  his 
force  towards  Manchester.  Then  he  got  tidings,  which  even  he 
could   not  overlook,   that   Wills  was  just   upon   him,  approaching 


208         MACKINTOSH   USES   PRESTON   AS   A   FORTRESS. 

the  Ribble  Bridge  in  the  grey  late  morning.  Farquharson  of  In- 
vercauld  was  sent  with  loo  men  to  hold  the  bridge,  and  Forster 
rode  across  to  reconnoitre.  He  returned  "by  another  way"; 
obviously  he  had  found  an  easy  ford,  and  he  withdrew  Farquhar- 
son's  men  and  left  the  lanes  leading  to  the  town  unlined  by 
musketry.  If  we  may  believe  Patten,  Mackintosh  was  responsible 
for  what,  at  first  sight,  seems  an  inexcusable  error.  In  conversa- 
tion with  Widrington,  Mackintosh  said  that  he  did  not  defend  the 
bridge  because  the  river  was  fordahle  at  several  places.  Again,  he 
did  not  occupy  the  houses  at  the  outer  ends  of  the  streets  because 
many  lanes  and  avenues  led  into  the  streets,  and  he  had  not  men 
enough  to  secure  them  all.  Nor  could  he  make  a  sortie  with  his 
Highlanders,  because  they  could  not  face  cavalry  and  guns,  in  which 
he  appears  much  to  have  misunderstood  them. 

If  this  be  true,  it  would  seem  that  Mackintosh  meant  to  make 
the  centre  of  the  town  a  place  of  resistance,  with  its  church,  much 
as  the  Cameronians  did  at  Dunkeld  in  1689.  He  wished  to  use 
Preston  as  a  little  Saragossa,  occupying  only  so  much  of  it  as  he 
had  men  enough  to  defend.  The  position  was  desperate,  the  mixed 
disorderly  force  would  have  been  out-manoeuvred  and  cut  up  by 
Wills's  dragoons  in  a  battle  fought  in  the  fields  between  the  river 
and  the  town,  while  in  the  town  dragoons  could  only  act  as  dis- 
mounted infantry.  The  streets  were  barricaded,  the  Jacobites  were 
mainly  under  cover,  and  Mackintosh,  in  fact,  made  so  vigorous  a 
resistance,  and  caused  the  enemy  such  heavy  losses,  that  his  plan 
was  better  than  it  looks.  But  he  had  not  reckoned,  apparently, 
that  Carpenter  would  arrive  next  day,  that  he  would  be  closely- 
invested,  and  that  he  had  not  ammunition  enough  to  stand  a 
siege. 

Wills  crossed  the  bridge  unopposed,  cautiously  advanced,  fear- 
ing a  trap,  and,  finding  all  clear,  set  parties  to  watch  most  of  the 
exits,  and  directed  two  attacks  to  be  made  at  the  north  and  south' 
entrances.  Honeywood,  on  the  Wigan  road,  had  Preston's  regiment, 
very  bravely  led  by  Lord  Forrester,  and  250  dismounted  dragoons, 
with  his  own  regiment  to  support  them.  On  the  north  the  assault 
was  entrusted  to  Wynn's,  Dormer's,  and  Stanhope's,  supported  by 
Pitt's  and  Mauden's  mounted  dragoons  and  a  squadron  of  Stan- 
hope's. The  ends  of  the  streets  were  to  be  seized  and  the  houses 
to  be  set  on  fire.  Within  the  town  Mackintosh  erected  four  barri- 
cades :  the  Earl  of  Derwentwater  worked  with  great  energy  by  way 


STREET-FIGHTING   AT   PRESTON.  209 

of  an  example.  Mackintosh  commanded  at  the  work  just  below 
the  church  :  the  Scots  gentry  were  stationed  north,  the  mosstroopers 
south,  of  the  edifice :  Lord  Charles  Murray  presided  at  the  south 
end  of  Church  Street,  by  Sir  Henry  Haughton's  garden.  On  the 
side  nearest  Lancaster,  "  the  windmill  barrier,"  Colonel  Mackintosh, 
brother  of  the  brigadier,  commanded  his  clan,  while  the  street  lead- 
ing towards  Liverpool  was  also  garrisoned  by  the  Highlanders. 
Nicholas  Wogan  held  a  slight  work  in  Church  Street.  Patten  says 
that  Captain  Innes,  with  fifty  men,  held  Sir  Henry  Haughton's 
great  house,  but  was  recalled  as  Preston  advanced,  thereby  losing 
a  most  important  position.  The  Merse  officer  attributes  this  dis- 
astrous retreat  to  Forster's,  not  Mackintosh's  orders,  and,  in  place 
of  Captain  Innes,  names  Captain  Maclean.  At  all  events,  the 
Hougoumont  of  the  position  was  abandoned. 

Lord  Forrester  then  led  Preston's  through  back  lanes  not  open 
to  Mackintosh's  fire,  and  exposed  himself  very  courageously.  The 
Merse  officer,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  church  steeple  to  recon- 
noitre, signalled  Forrester's  dispositions  to  Derwentwater  and  Lord 
Charles  Murray,  who  received  Preston's  with  a  front  and  flank 
fire,  and  threw  them  into  confusion.  But  Honeywood  occupied 
Haughton's  and  other  houses,  and  burned  the  houses  between 
them  and  the  barricade.  The  Merse  officer  suggested  to  Forster 
to  destroy  the  great  houses  with  his  guns,  but,  not  understanding 
anything  of  the  matter,  Forster  refused.  "  The  body  of  the 
town,"  he  said,  having  picked  up  the  phrase,  "was  the  security 
of  the  army."  But  the  parts  of  the  town  which  the  enemy  had 
occupied  were  conspicuously  the  reverse.  Lord  Charles  Murray 
made  good  his  own  barricade,  the  enemy  losing  heavily,  while 
Nicholas  Wogan  gained  renown  by  a  very  noble  action.  Captain 
Preston  of  Preston's  had  fallen,  dangerously  wounded,  when 
Nicholas  leaped  over  the  barricade  and  brought  him  in  under  a 
cross-fire.  This  deed  later  secured  his  pardon,  and  he  was  for 
thirty  years  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  England,  both  on  sea  and  land. 
The  Mackintoshes  repulsed  an  attack  by  Dormer  at  the  windmill, 
and  night  fell.  But  prisoners  had  the  pleasure  of  telling  their 
captors  that  Carpenter  was  coming  up  with  all  his  force,  on  which 
news  a  number  of  the  English  Jacobites  escaped  by  the  Liverpool 
road,  that  Wills  had  neglected  to  secure.  Perhaps  Mackintosh 
did  not  believe  the  report  of  Carpenter's  arrival,  for  he  sent  off, 
early  on  November  13,  a  sanguine  report  to  Mar. 

VOL.  IV.  o 


210  THE  JACOBITES  CAPTURED. 

By  ten  next  morning  Carpenter  was  in  view  with  2500  men.  He 
thoroughly  invested  the  town,  and  it  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the 
details  of  the  consequent  surrender.  Forster  and  Widrington,  of 
their  own  good  will,  sent  Oxburgh  to  ask  for  terms,  and  was 
answered  that  Wills  would  not  put  them  to  the  sword,  but  leave 
them  at  the  king's  mercy.  He  had  no  choice.  The  Scots, 
especially  the  Highlanders,  in  vain  asked  to  be  led  to  die,  sword 
in  hand ;  but  they  were  not  led,  and  gentlemen  preferred  to  risk 
rope  and  axe  in  reliance  on  English  clemency.  Wintoun,  young 
Lockhart,  Major  Nairne,  and  Captain  Shafto  entreated  Mackintosh 
to  line  the  hedges  on  the  north  road,  while  they  and  their  friends 
cut  their  way  through.  But  Forster  had  given  hostages  for  an 
armistice,  and  Mackintosh  could  not  act.  The  English  forces 
plundered  the  town,  the  prisoners  were  kept  for  trial,  but  Lockhart 
and  Major  Nairne  were  shot,  with  two  others,  as  having  held  Eng- 
lish commissions.  Lockhart  himself  laid  Nairne  in  his  coffin.  He 
was  shot,  and  the  two  survivors  did  the  same  last  duty  to  him, 
and  then  were  shot.*  About  iioo  Scots  and  450  English  were 
taken  prisoners ;  Derwentwater  and  Kenmure  were  later  executed. 
Nithsdale  escaped  from  the  Tower  in  his  wife's  dress  ;  Forster 
escaped  by  a  ruse  almost  too  simple ;  and  Charles  Wogan  and 
Brigadier  Mackintosh  simply  fought  their  way  out  of  Newgate,  with 
six  others,  the  day  before  their  trial.  Of  Charles  Wogan  much 
remains  to  be  told,  before  he  reposes  in  the  natural  station  of  such 
a  knight-errant,  as  Governor  of  La  Mancha  (cf.  pp.  239,  240). 

There  could  be  no  other  end  of  an  expedition  of  forces  so 
divided  in  character,  so  disorderly,  and,  as  far  as  Forster  was  con- 
cerned, so  ill  led.  Mackintosh,  when  the  pinch  came,  perhaps 
made  the  best  he  could  of  the  situation.  If  he  had  held  the  fords 
and  bridge  against  Wills,  he  could  not  have  held  the  town  next  day 
against  Wills  and  Carpenter.  The  Master  of  Sinclair's  criticism  of 
Mar's  strategy  in  sending  Mackintosh  south  is  perfectly  correct. 
He  merely  dismissed  him  and  his  men,  without  ammunition  and 
without  orders,  to  look  for  a  few  cavaliers  of  whom  he  only  knew 
that  they  were  lurking  in  hills.  His  letters  to  Kenmure  and  Forster 
were  full  of  vague  hopes,  which  really  meant  fears ;  when  he 
"  hoped  "  this  or  that,  he  feared  the  reverse.  He  thus  divided  his 
strength  (luite  aimlessly,  trusting  that  "something  would  turn  up." 

After  Mackintosh's  departure  Huntly  came  in  with  1400  foot  and 
160  horse,  raising  Mar's  command  at  Perth  to  about  6000  foot  and 


JACOBITE   QUARRELS   AT   TERTH.  211 

600  amateur  horse — no  match  for  Argyll's  dragoons,  being,  most  of 
them,  soldiers  in  the  manner  of  Scott's  Laird  of  Balmawhapple. 
Sinclair,  who  maintains  that  "the  rivers  were  still  low,"  says  that 
Mar  should  now  have  forded  the  Forth,  which  the  western  clans 
could  have  turned  at  the  head,  while  Argyll,  not  reinforced,  could 
not  have  stirred,  nor  used  his  cavalry  in  the  mountains.  But  as 
the  rivers  rose  and  Argyll  was  reinforced,  while  Mar's  command 
dwindled  through  frequent  desertions,  the  chance  was  lost. 

Between  Marischal  and  Huntly,  whose  cavalry  was  in  part 
mounted  on  galloways,  no  love  was  lost.  Marischal  attempted  to 
gain  the  Macphersons,  who  resented  certain  seignorial  rights  exer- 
cised by  Huntly,  and  told  them  (what  is  true)  that  they,  not  the 
Mackintoshes,  were  the  genuine  Clan  Chattan,  and  he,  a  Keith,  their 
true  chief.  The  latter  part  of  this  antiquarian  argument  is  absurd, 
whether  Marischal  spoke  in  jest,  as  is  probable,  or  not.''  Huntly 
prevented  Field-Marshal  Keith,  Marischal's  brother,  from  beginning 
his  great  career  as  colonel  of  a  Macpherson  regiment ;  and  Sinclair, 
criticising  Marischal's  etymology  (Keith,  Chattan),  quoted  the  French 
philologist's  derivation  of  laquais  from  the  Latin  verna,  a  boy  slave — 

"  '  Laquais'  vienne  de  '  verna'  sans  doute, 
Mais  il  a  bien  change  sur  la  route." 

Huntly  was  involved  in  a  dispute  as  to  the  pay  of  his  gentlemen 
horse,  and  Marischal  is  said  by  Sinclair  to  have  received  ;^500  of 
the  public  money.  On  all  sides  were  desertions  and  jealousies,  and 
Sinclair  sided  with  Huntly,  to  the  detriment  of  the  Cause.  The 
aged  Balcarres,  the  useless  comrade  of  Dundee,  joined  the  forlorn 
hope  :  Marlborough  later  obtained  his  pardon.  Marlborough  had 
a  fellow-feeling,  for  he  had  been  paying  money  towards  the  adven- 
ture. About  a  command  for  Balcarres  arose  a  new  grievance  for 
the  Master.  Colonel  Cathcart  surprised  a  marauding  and  unsentricd 
party  in  Dunfermline.  Seventeen  prisoners  and  many  horses  were 
taken  in  this  ruffle  in  the  dark.  As  Sinclair  told  Mar  that  he  had 
frequently  predicted  this  kind  of  disaster,  their  relations  were  not 
more  amicable.  The  Jacobite  horse  were  brave,  no  doubt,  but  in- 
credibly ignorant  of  war,  tipsy,  and  disorderly.  In  brief,  the  High- 
landers were  always  the  only  soldier-like  men,  except  a  few  officers, 
in  the  Jacobite  forces,  and  the  Highlanders  were  to  be  fatally  divided. 
Sinclair  believed  that  Mar  had  ingeniously  embezzled  ^^2000  of 
Jacobite  money  which  he  brought  from  London, — "  from  his  cradle 


212  DELAYS   OF   MAR. 

he  had  it  in  him  to  be  a  thief."  A  few  years  later  we  shall  find 
Mar's  character  showing  in  a  very  doubtful  light.  No  steps  were 
taken  to  bring  powder  from  the  Low  Countries,  "  though  we  had 
small  ships  enough."  Next,  Mar  sent  Sir  John  Erskine  on  a 
mission  to  France.  "This  gentleman  is  my  brother-in-law,"  writes 
the  relentless  Sinclair,  "  and  I  ought  to  know  him,  nor  can  I  accuse 
myself  of  ever  having  spared  him,  absent  or  present,  in  my  life." 
"  His  darling  passion  is  desperate  projects,"  and  he  was  sent  solely 
to  mislead  James.  In  coming  back  the  luckless  Erskine  was 
wrecked  off  Dundee,  and  all  the  Spanish  gold  he  brought  was  over- 
whelmed in  ocean  !  ^ 

It  was  amidst  jealousies  about  promotions,  while  Huntly's  men 
were  practically  unofficered,  that  old  Breadalbane  came  in, — the 
Breadalbane  who  dealt  with  the  Highlanders  before  Glencoe.  He 
did  not,  in  fact,  as  we  have  shown,  embezzle  the  money  intended 
to  pacify  the  clans  at  that  time,  though  Scott  repeats  the  story  in 
his  notes  to  Sinclair's  narrative.  Breadalbane  was  nearly  eighty.  Why 
he  joined  Mar,  or  how  he  escaped  the  consequences,  is  unknown. 
He  was  a  humourist,  and  advised  the  officers,  as  they  did  nothing 
else,  to  turn  journalists,  get  a  printing-press,  and  publish  newspapers. 

Meanwhile  the  great  western  expedition  to  Dumbarton  and  Inver- 
aray occurred,  and  is  thus  briefly  but  sufficiently  described.  "The 
clans'  bloodthirsty  curiosity  was  soon  satisfied  in  Argyllshire  by 
seeing  folk  in  arms  ready  to  receive  them," — Islay  at  Inveraray 
with  I  GOO  men.'^  They  were  recalled  to  join  Mar,  after  doing 
nothing.  Huntly's  horse,  totally  undisciplined,  were  sent  to  Auch- 
terarder  to  join  the  western  clans,  with  Sinclair  to  encourage  them. 
The  clans,  in  consequence  of  desertions,  were  but  2500  men. 
Huntly,  Gordon,  Glengarry,  Maclean,  and  Sinclair  returned  to 
Perth,  and  Glengarry  showed  that  he  had  understanding  of  war. 
Huntly  was  earnest  to  join  his  men  with  these  clans,  being  irritated 
by  the  taunts  of  the  Lowlanders.  Douglas,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
the  English  mosstroopers  with  Forster,  arrived  at  this  time  with 
despatches,  accompanied  by  a  young  Englishman,  who  let  out  the 
state  of  the  Border  gentry.  "  There  was  scarce  a  cutting  sword 
among  them  :  "  they  were  cavalry  armed  with  light  small  swords, 
and  riding  light  hunters. 

The  western  clans  had  come  in,  but  Mar  now  waited  for  Mac- 
donald  of  Sleat,  Scaforth  with  the  Mackcnzies,  and  the  Erasers 
under  that   Mackenzie  who   had   married   the   eldest   daughter  of 


SIMON    OF    LOVAT   REAPPEARS.  213 

Hugh,  Lord  Lovat.  But  Sutherland,  with  his  own  men  and  the 
Mackays,  Munroes,  and  Gunns,  was  detaining  Seaforth,  who,  how- 
ever, occupied  Inverness,  while  that  Simon  Fraser  who  had  so  long 
been  a  prisoner  in  France  now  appeared  in  Scotland  and  led  his 
clan  over  to  King  George.  Simon  of  Beaufort's  case  is  instructive 
as  showing  that  the  clans  were  little  nations,  their  politics  being 
to  regard  their  rightful  chief  as  their  king,  and  to  follow  him,  with 
little  regard  to  the  claims  of  James  or  George.  How  the  Court 
of  Saint  Germain  had  long  ago  decided  that  Simon  was  a  traitor  we 
have  seen,  and  the  French  Government,  if  they  could  do  little  for 
their  exiled  guests,  could  at  least  keep  Simon  in  durance.  But 
in  April  17 14  the  leading  Frasers,  who  could  not  brook  a  Mac- 
kenzie usurper  as  chief  of  their  name,  selected  a  Major  Fraser  of 
Castle  Leather  to  visit  Simon  in  prison. 

The  Major,  a  Protestant  who  always  acted  on  the  supposed  motto 
of  his  enemies  the  Jesuits,  "the  end  justifies  the  means,"  was  a 
cousin  of  Mackintosh  of  Borlum.  Pretending  that  he  was  a  good 
Jacobite,  the  Major  procured  from  Mackintosh  credentials  to  James, 
Mackintosh  told  him  that  the  king  had  in  his  possession  a  letter 
written  by  Simon,  a  proof  of  his  double  dealing,  and  that  this  would 
cause  trouble :  the  king  would  not  be  apt  to  permit  the  release  of 
the  chief.  The  Major  set  out  from  Calais  in  a  French  boat,  and 
was  obliged  to  menace  three  sailors  on  board  with  his  rapier  before 
they  would  give  him  even  the  refreshment  of  that  poor  creature — 
small  beer.  On  landing  he  began  his  walk  to  Saumur,  where  Lovat 
lay,  and  offered  to  tramp  to  Bar-le-Duc  and  ask  for  James's  pardon 
and  permission  to  leave  the  country.  After  many  adventures  he  saw 
James,  who  frankly  said  that  he  did  not  believe  one  word  of  Lovat's 
written  profession  of  loyalty.  He  produced  an  intercepted  letter  of 
Lovat  to  Lord  Leven,  in  which  he  requested  that,  if  there  were 
trouble  at  Queen  Anne's  death,  John  would  raise  the  Frasers  in  the 
interests  of  Argyll.  James  had  received  this  letter  from  Leven, 
"as  sure  a  friend  as  he  had  in  Scotland," — a  curious  statement. 
James  then  tried  to  induce  the  Major  to  go  home  and  win  the  clan 
to  his  cause,  but  the  officer  stood  firm  by  Simon.  The  pair  deter- 
mined to  escape  to  England,  which,  after  a  long  delay,  they  did, 
setting  sail  on  November  14,  17 14.  They  skulked  in  London,  while 
the  Major  sought  the  favour  of  Lord  Islay.  He  was  sent  down  to 
Scotland  to  secure  a  loyal  address  to  King  George  from  the  gentry 
of  the  five  northern  counties,  whom  they  induced  to  believe,  in  the 


214  ADVENTURES   OF   LOVAT. 

case  of  Jacobite  signatories,  that  the  loyal  address  was  to  be  de- 
livered to  the  other  king,  James  !  ^  To  Whig  chiefs  they  said  that 
Islay  wanted  the  address  as  a  means  of  procuring  Simon's  pardon 
from  George.  In  February  17 15  the  Major  returned  to  London 
with  this  curious  document.  Argyll  and  Islay  did  not  know  which 
side  Lovat  really  meant  to  take.  Lovat  was  imprisoned  ;  but  two 
of  the  sentries  on  watch  were  Frasers,  and  through  them  they  hoped 
to  bribe  eighty  Highlanders  in  the  third  Guards,  who,  in  fact,  proved 
ready  to  cut  Simon's  path  out  of  town. 

The  Rising  began,  and  Sutherland  was  going  north  to  raise  his 
county  for  King  George.  To  Sutherland  Simon  wrote  "  a  very- 
creeping  letter,"  asking  him  to  go  bail  for  his  good  conduct :  he 
could  be  of  great  service  in  the  north.  Sutherland  undertook,  with 
Duncan  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  Monro  of  Foulis,  and  others,  to  be 
guarantors  for  Simon's  loyalty  in  a  bond  of  ^^5000.  But  Lovat 
had  no  pardon,  and  he  made  his  way  to  the  north  disguised  as  the 
Major's  groom.  At  Dumfries,  apparently,  though  the  Major  says 
at  Newcastle,  they  had  some  trouble,  but  were  helped  by  Annandale^ 
who  had  narrowly  escaped  from  Kenmure  and  his  company,  just 
then  beginning  their  futile  Rising.  Thence  they  made  their  way 
to  Stirling  and  waited  on  Argyll,  who  was  extremely  astonished 
to  see  Simon.  However,  the  Major  persuaded  Argyll  that  300 
Frasers,  who  had  refused  to  go  out  with  their  Mackenzie  chief, 
would  keep  Simon  straight  or  "send  his  head  to  Stirling,"  while 
the  Frasers  under  the  said  Mackenzie  would  desert  him.  "  I 
must  own,"  adds  the  Major,  "  that  his  Grace  had  his  doubts 
about  him  [Simon],   as  he  has  to  this  day." 

The  pair  reached  their  country  by  sea.  The  Major  saw  the  300* 
Georgian  Frasers,  and  was  asked  by  them  "on  what  terms  Lord 
Lovat  had  come  home  "  !  "  Gentlemen,"  said  the  Major  nobly, 
"  you  are  all  my  friends  and  relations,  and  I  am  bound  to  tell  you 
the  truth."  "  Which,  by  the  bye,  he  did  not  do,  but  dissembled 
with  them  all."  They  would  not  have  joined  Lovat  had  the  Major 
told  the  unvarnished  truth — namely,  that  Lovat  was  a  friendless^ 
fugitive.  So  he  boldly  declared  that  Lovat  had  a  full  pardon,  a 
promise  of  his  estate,  and  ^500  in  his  sporran.  "Whereupon 
quart  stoups  of  whisky  went  round  to  the  King's  health,  who  had 
given  their  Chief  his  peace." 

Thus  jesuitically  acted  the  Major,  with  the  best  results.  He 
marched   his   300   to  Culloden   House:   Culloden   had   200   men,. 


LOVAT  TAKES   INVERNESS.  21  5 

Kilravock  had  500.  Lovat  went  to  Fraserdale  to  gain  more 
recruits  for  an  attack  on  Inverness,  then  held  for  James  ;  and 
his  approach  frightened  away  Macdonald  of  Keppoch,  who  had 
advanced  "not  to  serve  any  king,  but  to  plunder,  as  his  ordinar 
always  was."  The  Major  is  no  grammarian,  but  his  meaning  is 
plain.  The  Major  then  advised  Simon  to  attack  Inverness  in  the 
name  of  King  George,  before  his  party  knew  that  he  was  still  under 
a  cloud,  and  to  send  to  the  Erasers  with  Mar,  bidding  them  desert. 
Three  hundred  of  them  consequently  did  so,  two  nights  before  the 
battle  of  Sheriffmuir,  and,  to  be  brief,  Inverness  surrendered. 
Strange  to  say,  Lovat's  heart — if  he  had  any — was  still  with  the 
Jacobite  side.  However,  as  needs  must,  he  became  the  chief 
means  of  breaking  up  the  Cause  in  the  north  of  Scotland.^ 

While  the  Cause  across  the  Border  was  being  crushed,  and  in  the 
north  was  on  the  point  of  crumbling  away.  Mar,  at  Perth,  was  doing 
nothing.  A  feeble  idea  of  fortifying  Perth  occurred  to  General 
Hamilton,  who  consulted  Sinclair, — no  engineer,  but  an  officer  with 
an  intelligent  interest  in  his  profession.  Aided  by  Sinclair's  valet, 
Hamilton  made  a  few  feeble  efforts,  later  carried  to  a  futile  pitch 
under  a  French  fencing-master.  The  host — we  can  hardly  style 
it  an  army — had  picked  up  a  few  guns,  but  had  no  powder  and 
ball.  The  guns  were  dragged  out  when  Mar  led  his  men  vaguely 
in  the  direction  of  Dunblane  with  no  particular  purpose.  Argyll 
had  as  far  as  possible  damaged  the  fords  of  Forth  :  they  had  no 
guide  to  these  but  Rob  Roy,  who  had  driven  cattle  through 
them  to  Southern  fairs,  and  Rob  was  a  dependent  of  Argyll, 
who  "  gave  him  wood  and  water."  Argyll  had  destroyed  the 
Bridge  of  Doune  over  Teith,  and,  for  its  size,  Teith  is  rather  a 
more  difficult  river  to  cross  than  Forth  itself. 

On  the  arrival  of  Seaforth,  Sleat,  and  the  Mackenzie  chief  of  the 
Frasers,  Fraserdale,  Mar  marched  out  "a  la  bonne  aventure,"  the 
blind  leading  the  blind.  On  the  night  after  the  first  day's  march 
the  Frasers  deserted  at  Auchterarder,  running  north  to  join  Simon 
of  Beaufort.  Two  hundred  of  Huntly's  best  men,  deserting  Glen- 
bucket,  also  went  off.  Next  day  Mar  reviewed  his  troops  at 
Auchterarder,  when  quarrels  arose,  Huntly  insisting  that  his  force 
should  accompany  Sinclair's  little  troop.  He  went  with  the  Mac- 
donalds,  Stewarts  of  Appin,  and  Camerons,  the  clans  who  were 
the  life  and  soul  of  Prince  Charles's  army,  and  with  the  remnant 
of  Gordon's  horse,  very  unlike  the  Gordons  of  Montrose's  day.    The 


2l6  SHERIFFMUIR. 

mass  of  the  army  was  to  meet  at  Ardoch,  by  the  Roman  camp ; 
the  advanced  guard  was  to  occupy  Dunblane.  It  was  November  1 2, 
the  day  of  barricades  at  Preston.  About  three  in  the  afternoon  a 
boy  came,  sent  by  Lady  Kippendavie  (Mrs  Stirling  of  Kippendavie), 
with  news  that  Argyll  was  marching  in  full  force  through  Dunblane. 
A  despatch  was  sent  to  Mar,  and  Sinclair  threw  forward  a  small 
patrol.  Darkness  came  on,  and  the  advanced  guard  bivouacked 
in  a  hollow,  with  the  Allan  Water  behind  them,  inviting  disaster. 
Mar  arrived,  and  declined  to  believe  that  Argyll  was  approaching. 
Eight  thousand  men  passed  the  night  in  a  death-trap,  where  the 
horses  could  not  be  moved,  commanded  by  heights  from  which 
three  regiments  of  foot  might  have  annihilated  the  force.  At 
dawn  the  enemy's  horse  were  visible  to  the  two  lines  of  the 
army  :  they  were  Argyll's  reconnoitring  party,  with  the  Duke 
himself.  Huntly  proposed  retreat  to  Sinclair,  who  said  that  to 
fight  Argyll  in  the  open  was  their  only  chance.  But  he  pro- 
posed first  to  negotiate  and  try  to  make  terms  with  the  Duke, — 
a  course  which  he  justifies  by  the  imbecility  of  their  leaders,  and 
the  chance  of  obtaining  terms  while  they  were  still  armed. 

Huntly  had  seen  an  intercepted  letter  from  Townshend  to  Argyll, 
and  gathered  that  he  had  power  to  negotiate.  However,  Mar  col- 
lected his  officers,  and,  by  Sinclair's  confession,  made  a  spirited 
speech.  Huntly  replied,  alluding  to  a  letter  which  Mar,  he  said, 
had  received  from  Bolingbroke.  What  encouragement,  he  asked, 
did  Bolingbroke  give  ?  If  this  was  the  despatch  of  the  end  of  July, 
entrusted  to  Allan  Cameron,  it  only  advised  delay,  as  we  have  seen. 
Sinclair  had  not  heard  of  this  letter  before,  and  Mar  did  not  answer 
Huntly's  question.  The  curse  of  Father  Callaghan's  false  news  of 
July  1 5  had  come  home.  It  was  unanimously  decided  to  fight. 
"No  man  who  had  a  drop  of  Scots  blood  in  him,  but  had  been 
elevated  to  see  the  cheerfulness  of  his  countrymen  on  that  occa- 
sion," as  bonnets  were  tossed  in  the  air,  and  even  the  Master  felt 
confident  of  victory.  "  I  began  to  think  that  Highlandmen  were 
Highlandmen  : "  previously  he  had  despised  them  as  mere  militia. 
They  were,  in  fact,  when  well  led,  much  superior  to  the  regular 
troops  of  the  day,  if  opposed  to  infantry,  unbacked  by  good  horse 
and  artillery. 

Hamilton  formed  the  host  into  two  columns  with  Huntly's  two 
companies  of  horse,  Marischal's  and  Linlithgow's  with  the  first 
column  :   with  these  went   Lord   Drummond.     They  all  rushed  to 


VICTORY   OF   JACOBITE    RIGHT   WING.  21/ 

the  top  of  the  rising  ground  on  the  great  bare  swell  of  Sheriff- 
muir,  which  is  destitute  of  cover,  but,  by  its  undulations,  caused 
half  of  each  army  to  be  sometimes  practically  invisible  to  the 
other  half,  as  at  Falkirk  in  Prince  Charles's  campaign.  Sinclair's 
horse,  with  Rollo's  and  Southesk's,  was  on  the  left  of  the  second 
marching  column.  When  that  column  started,  the  first  column 
was  already  forming  in  line  at  the  crest  of  the  rising  ground,  with 
their  horse  on  their  left,  "  it  seems  not  knowing  their  left  hand  from 
their  right."  Drummond  and  Marischal  and  Linlithgow  were  thus 
in  the  centre  of  the  foot.  There  appear  to  have  been  the  two 
columns  which  Sinclair  could  observe,  and  also  two  others,  "march- 
ing most  irregularly  at  some  distance."  The  account  is  confused, 
but  aide-de-camps  came  up  insisting  that  all  the  horse  must  go 
"to  the  right  of  the  whole  army."  Wightman,  on  the  other  side, 
agrees  with  Sinclair  that  the  right,  at  least  of  the  Jacobites,  was 
well  marshalled ;   regular  troops  could  not  have  done  better. 

From  the  hill  they  could  see  the  heads  and  colours  of  the  enemy 
marching  rapidly  to  the  Highland  left,  along  their  front,  which  seems 
to  have  been  a  dangerous  manoeuvre,  the  forces  being  but  two 
hundred  yards  apart.  But  no  advantage  was  taken  of  it,  though 
a  gentleman.  Captain  Livingstone,  with  oaths,  asked  Gordon  to 
give  the  word  to  charge.  Gordon  said  that  he  must  consult  Mar, 
Mar  was  not  to  be  found,  the  enemy  was  allowed  to  form,  and 
then  the  Highlanders  of  the  right  did  charge,  with  a  dropping  fire. 
The  enemy  answered  with  a  volley :  the  Highlanders  threw  them- 
selves on  the  ground,  rose,  and  with  the  broadsword  cut  through 
the  bayonets  in  a  moment,  as  later  at  Prestonpans,  "with  an  in- 
credible vigour  and  rapidity,  in  four  minutes'  time  from  receiving 
the  order  to  attack."  All  the  regulars  within  view  fled,  foot  and 
five  squadrons  of  dragoons ;  but  the  enemy  in  front  of  Drummond 
and  Marischal's  horse,  not  having  been  in  the  line  of  the  Highland 
rush,  stood.  Drummond  and  Marischal,  in  place  of  charging  them, 
wheeled  to  the  right  and  followed  the  pursuing  Highlanders.  Sin- 
clair takes  great  credit  for  preventing  his  men  from  joining  in  this 
movement,  and  has  been  blamed  for  not  attacking  the  firm  part  of 
Argyll's  line  himself.  But  what  could  three  squadrons  do  against  an 
undemoralised  line  of  bayonets  ?  Really,  he  seems  to  have  shown 
judgment.  He  had  heard  Major  MacArthur  call  out  that  their  left 
and  centre  were  broken  and  running,  and  he  replied,  "  S'wounds, 
keep  that  to  yourself." 


2l8  DEFEAT  OF  JACOBITE  LEFT  WING. 

A  squadron  of  Argyll's — whence  they  came  Sinclair  never  dis- 
covered— surrounded  a  number  of  Marischal's  men,  but  withdrew 
when  Sinclair  advanced  his  own.  Argyll  was  now  coming  up  unseen 
on  his  rear,  after  scattering  the  Jacobite  left  wing,  which  frequently 
re-formed  and  detained  him  before  he  drove  them  in  confusion 
to  the  Allan  Water,  The  horse  of  the  two  victorious  wings — 
that  is,  Sinclair's  and  the  Grey  Dragoons— now  halted,  in  fair  field, 
within  three  hundred  yards  of  each  other,  while  the  five  fugitive 
squadrons  of  Argyll's  horse  had  halted  and  formed  above  Dunblane. 
While  they  watched  each  other,  Argyll's  right  came  into  view,  a 
mile  away,  returning  from  the  pursuit  of  the  Jacobite  left.  Both 
forces  were  again  fairly  marshalled,  the  horse  and  Highlanders  of 
Mar  had  returned  from  their  headlong  pursuit,  and  now  was  Mar's 
chance.  The  affair  was  not  unlike  that  of  Marston  Moor,  but 
Mar  was  no  Cromwell.  Argyll  probably  thought  that  he  had 
accomplished  his  object ;  and  though  Glenbucket  uttered  his  famous 
"  Oh,  for  one  hour  of  Dundee,"  and  made  a  motion  to  Linlithgow 
to  charge.  Mar  stood  still,  and  the  Duke  moved  off  to  Dunblane  in 
the  dusk.  Mar  had  still  a  great  superiority  in  numbers ;  but  he 
threw  away  his  only  chance,  left  his  useless  guns  in  the  roads,  left 
his  broken  powder  carts,  and  lost  almost  all  of  his  columns  on 
the  left,  who  had  been  outflanked  early  in  the  day  by  Argyll's 
horse,  led  by  Cathcart  across  a  frozen  morass.  In  this  affair  the 
gallant  young  Earl  of  Strathmore  was  killed.  Deserted  by  his 
men,  he  had  seized  the  colours  and,  with  fourteen  others  as  brave, 
held  his  own  till  he  was  struck  by  a  musket -shot  and  sabred  by 
a  dragoon.  Even  the  Master  says,  "He  was  the  young  man  of 
all  I  ever  saw  who  approached  the  nearest  to  perfection."  On  the 
right,  when  the  Highland  charge  began,  the  brave  Clanranald  had 
fallen  in  front  of  his  clan,  who  were  rallied  and  led  to  take  their 
revenge  by  Glengarry.  On  Argyll's  side  the  Earl  of  Forfar  was 
slain  and  the  Earl  of  Islay  was  wounded.  The  losses  of  his 
army  were  reckoned  at  about  650  killed  and  wounded,  but  they 
had  made  a  number  of  prisoners  and  recovered  the  small  guns 
which  they  had  lost. 

Of  course  each  side  claimed  a  victory  in  a  scuffle  where  the 
generals  knew  not  how  to  find  their  o\.n  men,  while  tactical  errors, 
due  in  part  to  the  impossibility  of  surveying  the  whole  field,  were 
committed  by  both  parties.  The  advantage,  however,  was  de- 
cidedly with  Argyll.     He  had  proved  to  Mar  his  immobility,  and 


A    POWDERLESS   ARMY.  219 

Mar  lost  far  more  men  by  desertion  than  by  sword  or  shot.  The 
Rising  was  practically  dead,  and  the  most  unfortunate  thing  was 
that  James  was  trying  to  make  his  way  to  Scotland.  He  could 
do  no  good,  but  the  movement  was  kept  up  in  his  honour.  As 
we  shall  see,  he  heard  a  flourishing  account  of  the  battle  before 
he  set  sail,  but  remarked  that  the  statements  about  the  left  wing 
of  his  army  were  not  very  lucid. 

As  if  disasters  were  never  to  cease,  the  host  learned  from  Sea- 
forth,  as  they  returned  to  Perth,  that  Sutherland  had  taken  Inver- 
ness, the  feat  being  mainly  due  to  Lovat,  as  we  have  seen.  Sea- 
forth  therefore  returned  to  the  north,  whence  Sutherland,  with 
about  1700  men,  was  threatening  to  march  south.  Seaforth's  clan, 
the  Mackenzies,  had  gone  thither  in  front  of  him,  of  their  own 
will  and  fantasy.^''  Gordon  of  Glenbucket  also  departed  to  raise 
Huntly's  following  again.  The  victorious  Highlanders  of  the  right 
wing  "went  home  with  the  enemies'  plunder,"  which  must  have 
been  scanty,  and  gentlemen  of  the  clans  followed  to  look  for  them. 
Apparently  Argyll  might  have  marched  into  Perth,  had  he  thought 
good,  for  the  works  were  delayed  by  lack  of  labour  and  by  the 
hard  frost.  Meanwhile  Mar  promised  the  arrival  of  foreign  arms, 
powder,  and  money,  and  of  James,  who,  had  he  not  been  detained 
by  contrary  winds,  would  have  landed  at  DunstafTnage  near  Oban, 
the  ancient  seat  of  the  Dalriad  kings,  whence  he  might  have  found 
the  journey  to  Perth  both  difficult  and  dangerous. 

The  army  had  little  powder,  few  flints,  and  no  powder-horns,, 
though  there  were  tinkers  and  gypsies  enough  in  the  host,  whose 
business  was  the  making  of  such  utensils.  Hamilton  sent  memo- 
randa to  Mar  on  all  these  points ;  but  the  Highlanders  continued 
to  keep  their  powder  loose  in  their  pockets,  where  it  was  ruined 
if  the  weather  was  wet,  while,  if  the  warrior  thoughtlessly  put  his- 
lighted  pipe  in  his  pocket,  the  results  were  damaging  and  in- 
stantaneous. Flint  is  a  common  object  of  the  seashore  in  the 
east,  but  gun-flints  were  rare  in  this  strange  army.  It  was  to  this- 
host  that  the  news  of  the  Preston  disaster  came, — news  which  rumour 
could  not  exaggerate ;  but  Mar  wasted  much  powder  in  salvoes  for 
an  imaginary  success — that  reported  in  Mackintosh's  letter,  written 
in  the  dawn  of  the  day  of  surrender.  Tidings  of  reinforcements- 
for  Argyll,  of  Dutch  troops  on  the  way  to  England,  and  of  artillery 
shipped  from  London  for  the  attack  on  Perth,  were  not  lacking. 

Sinclair  pressed  on  Marischal  the  idea  of  asking  for  terms,   tO' 


220  THE   grumblers'   CLUB. 

-which  the  good  Earl  "answered  short,  that  he  would  rather  be 
hanged."  It  is  known  that  the  Government  did  not  reply  to  a 
hint  of  Argyll  about  terms  :  the  Duke  was  a  very  good  Scot,  and 
had  no  joy  in  victories  over  his  countrymen,  when  all  that  was 
necessary  could  be  gained  in  a  bloodless  way.  Sinclair  told  Maris- 
chal  that  he  himself  had  no  wife  and  family,  and  had  a  profession 
and  knowledge  of  "  the  languages,"  but  that  reason  bade  him  pity 
the  poor  gentlemen  involved.  Marischal  said  that  it  was  too  late 
to  be  reasonable.  The  AthoU  men  had  begun  to  see  that  they 
had  better  side  with  their  Duke  than  with  Tullibardine  and  Lord 
George,  then  very  young,  and  later  the  excellent  General  in  Prince 
Charles's  campaign.  One  recruit  arrived,  Keppoch,  of  whom  the 
relentless  Master  tells  us  that,  as  he  came  south,  he  robbed  the 
victorious  Highlanders  who  were  going  north  with  their  plunder. 
Sir  Walter  Scott  conceived  that  the  scoundrel  Patten,  in  his  History, 
used  against  Keppoch  similar  information  from  a  hostile  clan,  that  of 
the  Mackintoshes.  The  Keppoch  Macdonalds,  in  any  case,  during 
the  next  thirty  years,  reformed  their  predatory  character,  and  won 
glory  in  the  latest  fight  for  the  Cause. 

Mar  now  wished  all  the  gentlemen  to  sign  a  band  to  the  effect 
that  none  would  seek  to  obtain  terms  contrary  to  the  vote  of  the 
majority.  The  thing  was  not  liked.  Kinloch  remarked  that,  as 
the  king  was  not  mentioned  in  the  band,  it  smacked  of  the  Covenant, 
but  Mar  mended  that  defect.  Several  men  declined  to  sign,  and 
Marischal  told  Sinclair,  who  was  one  of  them,  that  the  measure  was 
intended  against  Huntly's  attempt  "to  make  a  separate  peace  for 
himself,"  like  Dicaearchus  in  Aristophanes,  The  Fifeshire  gentry, 
"The  Grumblers'  Club,"  agreed  with  Sinclair  that  they  needed  a 
capitulation  much  more  than  an  association.  They  had  only  looo 
foot  and  400  horse,  without  carbines  ;  as  to  their  king,  nobody 
knew  where  he  was.  They  could  not  hold  Perth  unfortified  and 
without  powder :  the  lack  of  powder  was  always  the  refrain  of 
these  laments.  The  Grumblers  were  said  to  design  to  send  a 
trumpeter  to  Argyll  and  ask  leave  to  capitulate ;  what  they  did 
was  to  remonstrate  formally  with  Mar.  They  asked  him  to  prevent 
James's  arrival ;  to  which  Mar  answered  that  he  knew  not  where  the 
king  was,  and  had  already  sent  to  warn  him  against  coming.  Now, 
by  December  i,  James  had  heard  of  the  place,  which  he  does  not 
name  in  writing  to  Bolingbrokc,  where  Mar  wished  him  to  land.^^ 
Even  by  December   1 2  there  is  no  sign  that  James  had  heard  of 


"THAT   HELL"   OF  CONFUSION.  221 

Mar's  message  :  indeed  he  only  at  that  date  received  intelligence  of 
what,  as  he  saw,  was  not  a  victory,  if  not  a  defeat,  the  battle  of 
Sheriffmuir.^2 

Finally  the  Fife  men  and  Huntly's  almost  unanimously  refused 
to  sign  the  band  of  association.  Lord  George  Murray  told  Sinclair 
that,  if  his  own  brother  acted  as  Sinclair  did,  he  would  call  him  a 
traitor.  Sinclair  replied  that,  were  he  Lord  George's  brother,  he 
would  flog  him.  One  would  suppose  that  swords  were  drawn,  but 
there  was  no  such  matter. ^^  Such  was  the  army  to  which  James 
was  coming.  The  Grumblers  feared  that  Mar  would  set  the  clans 
on  them,  for  they  had  no  idea  of  surrender,  and,  Sinclair  argues,  in 
their  hills  had  nothing  to  fear.  His  party  believed  that  Mar  had  an 
intercepted  letter  from  Townshend  to  Argyll,  to  the  effect  that  an 
indemnity  was  drawn  up,  save  for  the  names  of  the  men  excepted, 
among  which  would  certainly  be  that  of  Mar.  That  peer  had  spoken 
hastily  of  having  a  ship  in  readiness  for  flight ;  !■*  but  they  had  no 
ships ;  they  believed  that  he  had  three  !  In  any  case.  Mar  sent  to 
Argyll  his  chief  prisoner  taken  at  the  battle.  Colonel  Lawrence, 
who  brought  back  the  message  that  the  Duke  had  no  power  to  treat 
with  Mar,  or  with  the  Jacobites  en  masse,  but  with  individuals  only.^^ 
By  another  version,  Argyll  was  to  send  to  London  for  powers,  and 
reply  when  he  had  an  answer  from  Government.^^  To  double 
confusion.  Mar  had,  while  resisting  the  idea  of  capitulation,  sent 
to  Argyll  the  Countess  of  Murray,  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Argyll 
executed  in  1685,  with  instructions  to  see  what  could  be  got  in  the 
way  of  terms  ! "  Huntly's  men,  who  were  said  not  to  have  dis- 
tinguished themselves  in  the  fight,  and  who  were  the  victims  of  an 
unseemly  ballad,  were  kicked  in  the  streets. 

"  And  oh,  as  the  Marquis  rade  ! 
And  oh,  as  he  ran  ! 
And  oh,  as  the  Marquis  rade, 
When  the  battle  it  began  !  " 

said  the  ballad-monger,  adding  details  of  a  high  impropriety.  No 
wonder  that  Huntly  was  set  on  departing  for  the  North,  where 
Sutherland  was  threatening  his  country,  and  the  Master  meant  to 
accompany  him,  as,  bearing  a  gentle  heart,  he  "would  fain  be  out 
of  that  hell." 

Mar  seems  by  this  time  to  have  known  that  James  was  really 
coming,  for  he  spoke  to  Sinclair  of  a  plot  to  murder  him  on  the 


222  THE   KING   LANDS. 

way.  This  plan  is  mentioned  in  an  undated  warning  in  the  Stuart 
MSS.  Stair's  agents  were  the  Douglas  whom,  as  we  have  seen, 
Saint- Simon  mentions,  and  a  Mr  Elliot.  This  story  dates  from 
about  November  8/^  and  had  clearly  reached  Mar. 

Meanwhile  Huntly  departed,  and  the  Master,  giving  his  full 
mind  on  the  situation  to  his  friends  of  Fife,  rode  after  him.  His 
friends  went  home,  and  few  suffered  loss  of  estates,  none  of  life. 
Except  by  their  capture  of  a  few  muskets  and  barrels  of  powder, 
they  had  done  the  Cause  no  good,  while  their  leader's  conduct,  as 
complacently  described  by  himself,  is  open  to  more  than  one  inter- 
pretation. He  had  constantly  preached  to  his  friends  that  the 
resolute  men  of  the  party  were  either  Highland  chiefs,  who  could 
not  be  injured  in  their  mountain  retreats,  or  "bankrupt"  nobles 
with  nothing  to  lose,  who  could  go  abroad,  get  places  or  pensions 
in  France,  and  live  at  ease  on  their  reputation  for  loyalty.  In 
neither  category  could  he  reckon  men  like  Tullibardine,  who  held 
the  world  well  lost  for  the  sake  of  "  keeping  the  bird  in  his  bosom." 
Thirty  years  later,  beneath  the  monumental  peaks  that  look  down 
on  Loch  Shiel,  Tullibardine  raised  a  not  inglorious  standard. 

At  Castle  Gordon,  with  Huntly,  Sinclair  saw  Mar's  letter  to  the 
Marquis  announcing  that  the  deep  snow  had  allowed  the  army  "  to 
eat  their  Christmas  goose  "  at  Perth  unattacked,  that  he  had  received 
from  Argyll  a  civil  reply  to  a  message  asking  for  terms,  and  that  the 
king  would  soon  arrive.  On  December  22  (old  style)  James  had 
landed,  with  Allan  Cameron,  at  Peterhead,  and  been  met  by  Mar 
at  Fetteresso.  James  had  reached  St  Malo  on  November  8.^^ 
He  had  intended  to  start  instantly  for  the  west  of  Scotland.  On 
November  1 5  he  still  meant  to  sail  for  Dunstaffnage,  though  "  my 
going  to  Scotland  straight  has  been  vigorously  opposed."  Mean- 
while two  of  his  messengers,  Murray  and  Lord  Clermont,  were 
arrested  in  Flanders.  On  November  15  Bolingbroke  "repeats  the 
necessity  of  your  Majesty's  speedy  departure."  "  Vour  Majesty  may 
be  assured  that  nothins^  has  been  neglected.''^  Later  his  Majesty 
dismissed  Bolingbroke,  on  the  charge  that  everything  had  been 
neglected.  Bolingbroke  "  makes  no  doubt  but  we  shall  be  able  to 
procure  you  supjwrt  from  the  Continent."  20  What  support,  and  on 
vrhat  evidence  did  he  base  his  certainty? 

On  November  20  James  had  received  no  intelligence.  "The 
situation  is  terrible.  The  winds  are  contrary,  and  there  is  no  sign 
of  change.     The  world  may  have  changed  face  in  the  last  ten  days, 


THE   king's  journey.  223 

our  plan  may  have  turned  from  good  to  bad,  and  we  know  nothing." 
On  November  24  James  admitted  to  Bolingbroke  that  he  had  left 
Bar  too  hastily,  "  but  my  patience  was  no  longer  proof,  I  freely  own, 
against  all  the  attacks  made  on  my  reputation."  He  had  been 
delayed  by  Maclean's  treachery,  and  the  failure  of  Ormonde  and 
his  return  from  England.  In  Ormonde's  crowd  of  followers  at 
St  Malo  the  secret  of  James's  presence  there  became  public  property. 
As  soon  as  the  wind  permitted  he  embarked,  with  the  purpose  of 
sailing  round  Ireland.  The  seamen  said  that  the  route,  in  the 
weather,  was  impossible.  St  George's  Channel  was  crowded  with 
English  ships,  and  James's  own  crew  knew  who  he  was,  and,  though 
the  king  does  not  say  so,  a  reward  of  ;^i 00,000  might  tempt  them. 
James  knew  that  Rothe  (Routh,  an  Irish  adherent)  wished  him  to 
sail  at  all  hazards,  "  whither  he  could  not  well  tell,  nor  reply  to  the 
objections  made  by  Ormonde  and  myself."  Routh  was  disgusted, 
but,  with  his  usual  calm  fairness,  James  adds,  "  Were  he  not  too 
honest  a  man  to  say  what  he  thinks,  my  reputation  would  very  much 
suffer." 

Did  it  deserve  to  suffer?  Prince  Charles  would  have  sailed  at 
adventure  :  such  audacity  is  applauded  if  successful,  if  unsuccessful 
is  called  folly.  In  this  letter  alone  the  king's  temper  allows  him 
to  speak  of  Berwick  most  unworthily  as  "  a  disobedient  servant  and 
a  bastard."  Later,  he  returns  on  this  point  to  his  usual  reasonable- 
ness as  regards  his  brother.  "  His  honour  and  conscience  may 
make  him  omit  sometimes  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  will  not,  I 
am  sure,  permit  him  to  act  manifestly  against  his  duty.''^^  On 
December  i  James  was  starting  for  the  east  coast  of  Scotland,  but 
Ormonde  again  returned  from  an  attempt  to  reach  England,  and 
December  12  found  James  still  in  France.  "The  contretemps  of 
my  not  passing  was  cruel,  but  there  was  no  remedy."  His  last 
letter  before  his  departure  with  a  fair  wind  is  dated  "  December  27." 
The  king  came  to  meet  a  wintry  welcome.  Just  before  January  i, 
1 7 16,  Sutherland,  with  the  Mackays,  Grants,  Rosses,  Munroes,  and 
Lovat's  Erasers,  had  frightened  Seaforth  into  submission.--  Neither 
in  the  struggle  of  Montrose,  nor  in  17 15,  nor  in  1745,  nor  in  17 19, 
•was  the  large  clan  of  Mackenzie  of  much  use  to  the  Cause.  Among 
other  causes  they  were  hampered  by  the  Whig  clans  of  the  north,  the 
Munroes  and  Mackays,  while  the  Erasers,  with  a  chief  like  Lovat, 
were  never  to  be  reckoned  on  with  confidence.  But  on  hearing 
that  James  was  landed,  Seaforth  turned  out  again  and  considerably 


224  THE   king's  VIEW  OF  AFFAIRS. 

hampered  Sutherland,  who,  however,  kept  his  hold  on  Inverness. 
In  the  south,  Argyll,  with  Dutch  and  other  reinforcements,  caused 
Mar  to  draw  in  his  garrisons  from  Fifeshire,  so  that  the  insurgents 
were  practically  cooped  up  between  Perth  and  Aberdeen,  unless 
they  chose  to  take  to  the  hills  during  very  hard  winter  weather  aad 
without  supplies. 

Mar,  with  as  much  pomp  as  he  might,  hurried  to  James  at 
Fetteresso,  to  "that  unhappy  Prince,  as  entirely  a  stranger  to  his 
own  affairs,"  writes  Sinclair,  "  as  if  he  had  dropped  out  of  another 
world,  or  from  the  clouds.  He  was  brought  in  imminent  danger 
of  his  Ufe,  without  .  .  .  any  other  effect  than  the  certain  ruin  of 
his  friends,"  who,  perhaps,  could  never  have  got  good  terms,  and 
now  had  less  chance  than  ever.-^  Mar  is  said  to  have  put  the 
best  face  on  things :  Huntly  would  recover  Inverness  before 
Argyll  could  attack  Perth,  and  the  whole  of  the  Highlands  would 
gather  round  the  standard.  "  Poor  George,"  as  Mar  calls  General 
Hamilton,  was  sent  over  to  France  as  a  messenger :  the  whole 
burden  of  the  failure  at  Sheriffmuir  had  been  laid  on  Hamilton's 
shoulders,  and  he  had  been  made  odious  to  the  Highlanders,  as 
James  wrote  to  Bolingbroke.  Hamilton  was  to  obtain  help  from 
Spain.-*  He  could  have  done  more  to  secure  Perth  than  any  one 
who  was  left,  says  Sinclair,  inconsistently,  for  he  had  previously 
described  in  the  most  amusing  way  Hamilton's  amateur  ideas  of 
fortification.  But  now  the  Master,  very  fond  as  he  is  of  the 
classics,  quotes  Macrobius, — a  feat  not  likely  to  be  repeated  by 
any  infantry  captain  of  our  more  highly  educated  age. 

Probably  James  was  hoodwinked.  But  had  he  known  that 
Argyll  had  ii,ooo  regulars  within  eighteen  miles  of  Perth,  and 
that,  for  the  taking  of  Inverness,  Huntly  possessed  neither  men, 
nor  powder,  nor  heart, — while  the  weather  which  kept  Argyll  from 
Perth  kept  Huntly,  had  he  been  ever  so  eager,  from  Inverness, — 
had  James  known  all  this,  what  could  he  do?  Huntly  (January  i) 
did  send  a  message  to  call  out  Glengarry  and  Lochiel,  but  he  can- 
not have  expected  their  arrival.  James  was  actually  led  to  believe 
(January  8)  that  Huntly  was  easily  able  to  surround  Sutherland, 
and  take  all  his  army  prisoners  and  hostages  for  the  captives  of 
Preston  !  ^'^  Writing  to  Bolingbroke  from  Kinnaird  on  his  way  to 
Perth  (January  2,  O..S.),  James  says,  "Our  present  circumstances 
are  none  of  the  best"  ;  but  Atholl,  he  is  told,  will  declare  for  him, 
Huntly  and  Seaforth  will  clear  the  north,  "  but  of  all  this  I  have 


MAR  "CAPTURES"  JAMES  (1716).  22$ 

no  certainty."  He  repeats  his  lesson,  and  believes  as  much  of  it 
as  he  can.  The  only  chance  lies  in  receiving  early  assistance,  and 
he  hopes  that  the  Regent  will  be  moved  to  help  him.  Bolingbroke, 
in  December,  had  represented  himself  as  au  tnieux  with  "  Euphemia," 
the  Regent.  Will  he  not  send  Ormonde  to  England  yet  once  more 
with  French  troops,  and  send  Irish  regiments  to  Scotland  ?  Dillon 
will  be  a  desirable  general,  and  Mar, — "  I  never  met  with  a  more 
able  or  more  reasonable  man,  nor  more  truly  disinterested  and  affec- 
tionate to  me," — will  gladly  resign  command.  Mar,  the  reasonable, 
able,  and  affectionate,  had  "  captured  "  James,  as  Bolingbroke  was 
soon  to  learn.  Mar  advised  James  to  write  to  Argyll  and  Islay  asking 
them  to  join  his  cause, — a  proof  of  Mar's  reasonableness  and  ability. 
He  might  as  well  have  written  in  the  same  terms  to  Dumbarton 
rock.  "  It  is  my  business,"  says  James,  "  to  please  as  many  and 
disgust  as  few  as  possible," — a  business  for  which  his  natural  stiff- 
ness, and  a  melancholy  that  increased  with  each  day's  discovery  of 
the  truth,  made  him  quite  unfit.  He  ends  with  a  report  that  Ireland 
is  rising,  and  that  Sutherland  has  evacuated  Inverness,^^ — '*  sooner 
or  later  I  make  no  doubt  of  its  coming  to  that."  "  Unhappy 
Prince ! "  Perhaps  Mar  was  incapable  of  seeing  things  as  they 
were ;  perhaps  he  hoped  for  miracles  to  be  wrought  by  James's 
presence ;  perhaps  he  thought  that  to  tell  him  the  truth  and  ship 
him  back  to  Dunkirk  was  to  discredit  himself,  James,  and  the 
Cause.  Bad  as  the  choice  was,  it  was  the  least  of  the  evils  open 
to  his  choosing. 

On  receiving  James's  letter,  already  cited,  Huntly  saw  that  the 
king  had  been  deceived.  He  answered  complaining  of  Mar's  usage 
of  him,  and  of  the  eternal  want  of  powder,  which  Mar  seems  to 
have  regarded  as  a  rare  product  of  the  soil  in  certain  favoured 
regions,  not  as  a  commodity  which  could  be  made  at  Perth  or 
Aberdeen  by  arts  known  to  men.  Sinclair  went  to  see  some  neigh- 
bours, hating  life,  and  pitying  every  man  he  met.  "Nam  quid 
miserius  misero  non  ?niserafiie  se  ipsian  "  (Divus  Augustin.,  Lib.  I., 
Confess.),  quotes  the  erudite  Master.  He  tried  to  find  a  ship  and 
escape ;  he  failed,  and  Huntly,  in  place  of  taking  Inverness,  made 
a  fortnight's  truce  with  Sutherland.  Huntly  had  several  ingenious 
excuses  :  one  of  them  was  the  example  set  by  Seaforth.  Gordon 
of  Glenbucket  went  to  Perth  and  saw  James, — "  the  only  modest 
man  there,  he  hearkened  to  reason,"  quoth  Glenbucket. 

James's  journey  to  Perth  had  been  delayed  by  an  attack  of  fever 
VOL.  IV.  P 


226  MELANCHOLY  OF  JAMES. 

and  ague  at  Fetteresso.  Here  he  had  received  a  loyal  address  from 
the  Episcopal  clergy  of  the  diocese  of  Aberdeenshire,  a  county  in 
which  the  Church  as  arranged  by  James  VI,  had  struck  deep  root, 
surviving  the  storms  of  the  Covenant,  the  Commonwealth,  and  the 
Revolution  of  1688.  The  clergy  assured  James  that  the  recovery 
of  his  just  rights  would  "  not  ruin  our  religion,  liberties,  and 
property,"  which  was  true  enough,  but  not  easily  to  be  credited  by 
Protestants  who  remembered  James's  father.  As  for  James,  the 
song  said — 

"  He  did  no  wrong,  he  knew  no  guilt, 
No  laws  had  broke,  no  blood  had  spilt ; 
If  rogues  his  Father  did  betray. 
What's  that  to  him  who's  far  away?" 

The  address  alluded  to  the  heavenly  care  displayed  in  the  king's  pre- 
servation from  "  the  Hellish  contrivances  for  encouraging  assassins 
to  murder  your  sacred  Person,  a  practice  abhorred  by  the  very 
Heathen."  This  was  a  not  undeserved  allusion  to  the  price  of 
;^i  00,000  set  on  the  king's  head.  If  James  replied  in  the  cold  two 
lines  which  he  is  reported  to  have  uttered,  the  Highlanders  at  Perth, 
remarking  his  taciturnity,  may  well  have  asked,  "Can  he  speak?" 
Charles  II.,  however  much  he  disliked  Covenanting  ministers,  made 
himself  personally  agreeable  to  them  in  his  lively  way.  But  James, 
constitutionally  shy,  had  never  acquired,  by  study  and  practice, 
geniality  of  manner.  At  Dundee  he  sat  on  horseback  for  an  hour 
in  the  street,  while  the  people  kissed  his  hand  :  he  remarks  wearily 
to  Bolingbroke,  "The  people  here  are  very  affectionate."  When  he 
entered  Perth  the  British  Parliament  was  meeting  in  London,  and 
impeached  Widrington,  Nithsdale,  Carnwath,  Wintoun,  Kenmure,  and 
Nairne  of  high  treason.-^  Erskine,  with  the  gold  for  the  campaign, 
was  wrecked  off  Dundee,  and  the  money  was  lost.  Huntly  pro- 
longed his  truce  with  Sutherland,  and  Inverness  was  held  for  King 
George  by  2500  men.  James  was  permitted  to  issue  one  proclama- 
tion out  of  many,  in  which  he  said,  "  For  me,  it  will  be  no  new 
thing  if  I  am  unfortunate  :  my  whole  life,  even  from  my  cradle,  has 
shown  a  constant  series  of  Misfortunes  "  !  Nothing  could  be  more 
paralysing  to  the  adherents  of  this  melancholy  prince ;  yet  Mar 
(January  29)  assured  Huntly  that  the  Regent  was  about  to  adopt 
their  cause  openly,  and  send  an  invading  force  to  England.  As 
Berwick's  son,  Lord  Tynemouth,  had  arrived  in  the  ship  which  con- 
veyed the  lost  gold,  the  impression  to  be  given  was  that  Tynemouth 


CADOGAN    SENT   TO    HASTEN    ARGYLL'S   MOVEMENTS.      227 

brought  these  glad  tidings.  Mar  said  that  Stair,  English  ambassador 
in  France,  had  warned  his  Government  of  an  open  rupture  with 
France.  Argyll's  men  were  deserting  daily.  Mar  was  as  optimistic 
as  ever,  but  Huntly  well  knew  how  far  he  was  to  be  trusted.^^  As 
usual,  he  was  demanding  powder  and  receiving  no  reply. 

On  January  31  James  wrote  to  Charles  XII.  of  Sweden.  He 
deeply  regretted  that  hero's  misfortunes,  and  was  sure  that  he  might 
best  retrieve  them  by  establishing  him  on  the  English  throne  as  a 
faithful  ally !  This  letter  is  marked  by  James  '*  Not  sent."  He 
had  not  time  nor  opportunity  to  send  it.^  On  the  same  day  Bol- 
ingbroke  wrote  a  very  guarded  letter  to  Mar.  The  secret  about 
France  was  to  be  kept  most  private.  Mar,  we  see,  had  blabbed  it  to 
Huntly.^''  Had  Bolingbroke  really  won  over  the  Regent  ?  Nothing 
seems  more  improbable. 

Meanwhile  James  resided  at  Scone,  within  two  miles  of  Perth, 
and  fitful  preparations  were  made  for  crowning  him  there,  as  Bruce 
had  been  crowned  with  maimed  rites.  An  eyewitness  says,  "  It  was 
no  time  for  mirth.  Neither  can  I  say  I  ever  saw  him  smile.  .  .  . 
If  he  was  disappointed  in  us,  we  were  tenfold  more  so  in  him.  We 
saw  nothing  in  him  that  looked  like  spirit.  .  .  .  He  cared  not  to 
come  abroad  amongst  us  soldiers,  or  to  see  us  handle  our  arms  or 
do  our  exercise."  These  remarks  in  *A  True  Account  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings at  Perth,  by  a  Rebel,'  are  not,  as  has  been  supposed,  from 
the  pen  of  the  Master  of  Sinclair,  who  was  in  the  north  and  on  the 
point  of  flight.  James  was  still  under  the  effects  of  his  ague,  and 
the  winter  was  unusually  hard.  He  had  come  to  a  scene  of  ruin, 
and  he  had  a  price  on  his  head.  But  either  his  uncle,  Charles  II., 
or  his  son.  Prince  Charles,  would  have  put  a  better  face  on  the 
situation. 

We  know  that  Marlborough  distrusted  and  detested  Argyll,  who 
really  seems  now  to  have  been  as  dilatory  as  Mar.  From  Sinclair's 
account  of  Perth  after  Sheriffmuir,  it  seems  that  Argyll  could 
have  scattered  lightly  the  remnants  of  Mar's  host.  Marlborough's 
favourite  officer,  Cadogan,  was  sent  down  to  hurry  him  ;  if  there 
really  was  warning  from  Stair  of  danger  from  France,  this  was 
highly  necessary.  On  December  25,  1715,  Stanhope  had  informed 
Stair  that  the  rebels  would  abandon  Perth  on  the  arrival  of  the 
Dutch  troops  at  Stirling.^^  Things  had  not  moved  so  rapidly, 
and  Argyll  was  unwilling  to  march  forward  through  the  snow, 
which    lay   very   deep.     Cadogan   reported  suspiciously  of  Argyll's 


228  THE  BURNING  OF  VILLAGES. 

behaviour :  he  seemed  depressed  when  he  heard  that  the  Jacobites 
had  decamped  from  Perth.  He  himself  was  to  have  marched  on 
January  29,  and  the  men  of  the  Jacobite  army,  says  "A  Rebel," 
were  delighted  to  hear  the  news.  "  What  did  the  king  come  hither 
for?  Was  it  to  see  his  people  butchered  by  hangmen,  and  not 
strike  one  stroke  for  their  lives  ?  Let  us  die  like  men  and  not 
like  dogs."  This  was  the  spirit  of  the  Scots  at  Preston,  the  spirit 
of  the  army  of  Prince  Charles  when  he  and  they  were  turned  back 
at  Derby  by  a  council  of  war,  despite  the  eager  remonstrances  of 
the  Prince.     Did  James  remonstrate  ? 

He  did  extremely  detest  the  resolution  taken  by  his  council  on 
January  29,  not  merely  to  retreat,  but  to  burn  and  destroy  the 
towns  and  villages  such  as  Auchterarder,  and  the  hay  and  corn  on 
the  route  which  Argyll  would  take.  The  cruel  order,  however,  was 
given  and  executed,  and  James,  as  was  reported,  wept  when,  at  two 
in  the  morning,  his  reluctant  army  crossed  the  Tay  on  the  ice 
and  retreated  northwards.  "The  burning  goes  mightily  against 
his  mind,"  Mar  wrote  to  General  Gordon  (February  3-14),  "but 
there's  no  help  for  it."^^  The  coins  with  the  head  of  James  HI. 
and  Vni.  had  been  struck  by  Roettier  (they  are  rather  pretty 
crown  pieces),  and  were  ready  at  Paris  when  James  in  his  flight 
reached  Montrose.^  At  Montrose  he  wrote  to  the  Regent.  Affairs 
might  yet  be  restored,  with  the  help  of  France.  "  We  entreat  your 
instant  aid,  which  we  do  not  doubt  that  we  shall  obtain  after  all 
the  assurances  you  have  given  me"  (February  3-14).^*  Erskine 
the  unlucky  was  being  sent  with  this  despatch.  James  had  left 
Dundee  on  February  i-ii,  Argyll  had  entered  it  on  February  2-12. 
He  sent  forces  to  Arbroath  and  Brechin,  but  the  weather  detained 
them. 

James  reached  Montrose  on  February  3-14;  on  February  3  he 
wrote  to  the  Regent,  apparently  with  no  idea  of  abandoning  his 
enterprise.  His  army  had  been  sent  forward  towards  Aberdeen, 
understanding  that  he  was  to  follow.  Yet  after  writing  the  letter 
of  February  3-14  to  the  Regent,  of  which  we  have  an  unfinished 
copy,  he  suffered  himself  to  be  induced  to  embark  with  Mar  and 
others  on  the  following  day  (February  4-15).  On  the  evening  of 
February  3  James  saw  an  envoy  of  Huntly's.  He  asked,  "  with 
emotion,"  "what  Huntly  is  doing."  ^''  The  answer,  "Nothing," 
decided  his  flight.  He  first  wrote,  on  that  date,  a  letter  to  Argyll, 
He  cannot  think,  he  says,  of  leaving  the  country  without  repairing 


FLIGHT   OF  JAMES   AND   MAR.  229 

the  loss  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  burned  villages.     He  therefore 

consigns  "  to  the  magistrates  of the  sum  of  ,"  imploring 

Argyll,  "as  a  lover  of  your  country,"  to  employ  the  money  for  the 
compensation  of  the  people,  "  that  I  may  at  least  have  the  satisfac- 
tion of  having  been  the  ruin  and  destruction  of  none  at  a  time 
when  I  came  to  free  all.  ...  I  thought  to  write  this  in  my  own 
hand,  but  had  not  time." 

A  copy  of  this  very  characteristic  letter  is  among  the  papers  of 
the  Thrieplands  of  Fingask.  But  the  copy  at  Windsor  Castle  is 
marked,  in  James's  own  hand,  "  Never  sent."  ^^  He  certainly  wrote 
to  General  Gordon  giving  his  orders,  and  empowering  him  to  send 
the  letter  to  Argyll,  but  Gordon  never  sent  it.*  James's  intentions 
were  humane  but  futile.  He  sailed  away  with  Mar  and  Melfort,  and 
sent  for  Marischal,  who,  according  to  the  little  account  of  him  by 
d'Alembert,  refused  to  come.  Marischal  was  despatched  by  the 
dispirited  and  deserted  army  to  try  whether  Huntly  would  stand  by 
them.  Of  course  Huntly  would  not,  and  the  remnant  met  and  broke 
up,  like  Lord  George  Murray's  remnant  after  Culloden,  at  Ruthven, 
in  Badenoch.  It  is  certain  that  honour  might  have  been  won  by 
a  stand  at  Perth,  but  the  army  had  only  seven  hundredweight  of 
powder, — so  Hamilton,  who  knew,  told  the  Regent.  Marshal  Keith, 
in  his  Memoirs,  says  that  powder  for  one  day's  fight  might  perhaps 
have  been  procured  at  Aberdeen.  Even  in  these  circumstances 
the  army  would  have  trusted  to  the  broadsword  with  joyous  hearts. 
But  princes  do  not  take,  or  are  not  permitted  to  execute,  such 
resolutions.  In  fact,  the  game  was  up.  An  army  drifting  about, 
without  ammunition,  without  supplies,  under  a  proscribed  leader 
valued  at  a  great  price,  in  the  worst  of  wintry  weather,  cannot  exist. 

Thus  ended  an  affair  which  caused  ruin,  blood,  and  tears  enough 

to  men  and  women,  nobles  and  peasants.     In  the  whole  there  is 

nothing  to  be  praised  but  the  spirit  of  the  fighting-men,  Highlanders 

or  Lowlanders. 

"  Here's  to  every  honest  man 
That  will  do't  again," 

says  the  song,  and  they  "  did  it "  again  and  again. 
*  Or  did  James  never  send  it  to  Gordon  ? 


230  NOTES. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   IX. 

^  Patten,  History  of  the  Late  Rebellion,  p.  39. 
2  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  197. 
^  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  106-108. 
^  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  179. 
^  Sinclair,  p.  161. 
*  Sluart  Papers,  i.  486. 
"  Sinclair,  p.  187. 
^  Major  Eraser's  Manuscript,  ii.  11. 

®  Major    Eraser's    Manuscript.      Edited    by    Lieutenant -Colonel    Alexander 
Fergusson.     Two  volumes.     Edinburgh,   18S9. 
^°  Sinclair,  p.  243. 

"  Stuart  Papers,  i.  47 1.     December  I,  171 5.     (No  date  or  place.) 
J2  Stuart  Papers,  i.  472-474. 
^*  Sinclair,  p.  287. 
"  Sinclair,  p.  294. 
^^  Sinclair,  p.  299. 
^^  Sinclair,  p.  301. 
^^  Sinclair,  pp.  302-304. 
^^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  453. 
^*  Stuart  Papers,  i.  456. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  458,  459. 
^^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  466,  474. 
22  Kae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  336. 
'•»  Sinclair,  p.  334. 
^*  Mahon,  vol.  i.,  Appendix,  p.  xl. 
-'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  483,  484. 
^  Mahon,  vol.  i..  Appendix,  pp.  xl-xliv. 
^  Rae,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  351-358. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  490,  491. 
2'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  492,  493. 
*<*  Stuart  Papers,  i.  493,  494. 
'•'^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  160. 
^^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  496. 
'•'  Stuart  Pajiers,  i.  503. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  504,  505. 
**  Sinclair,  p.  359. 
^  Browne,  Highland  Clans,  ii.  340,  341  ;  Stuart  Papers,  i.  505. 


231 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE    SEQUELS    OF    THE    RISING. 
1716-1717. 

The  flight  of  James  proved  to  have  been  made  not  a  day  too  soon, 
if  he  wished  to  escape  the  pursuit  of  Argyll  and  the  consequences 
attending  his  presence  with  an  army  lacking  ammunition  and  supplies 
and  cut  off  from  a  base.  Cadogan,  with  three  regiments  and  600 
foot,  reached  Montrose  on  February  5-16  ;  Argyll  on  the  same  night 
was  at  Brechin  with  all  his  dreaded  dragoons  ;  and  the  Dutch  forces 
occupied  Arbroath.  On  February  8-19  the  Duke  arrived  in  Aber- 
deen :  the  Jacobites  had  reached  the  town  on  February  6-17,  and 
had  there  been  disbanded  by  Gordon,  who  read  the  farewell  letter 
of  James.  The  contemporary  historian,  Rae,  says  that  Gordon  and 
the  other  leaders  pretended  to  be  surprised,  "  though  they  were 
in  the  secret  design  before  they  left  Perth,"  but  this  is  not  correct : 
the  design  of  flight  was  only  decided  on  after  the  arrival  at  Montrose. 
Many  of  the  chief  men  hurried  to  Peterhead  to  take  shipping,  which 
James  despatched  as  soon  as  he  landed  at  Gravelines  (February 
10-21).^  The  main  body  of  the  fugitive  army  broke  up  at  Ruthven 
in  Badenoch,  whence  General  Gordon,  the  Earls  of  Linlithgow  and 
Southesk,  Struan,  Clanranald,  and  others,  sent  a  letter  to  Argyll. 
They  appealed  to  his  patriotism  :  they  had  suffered  "  many  and 
great  hardships  since  the  late  Union,"  and  on  this  point  they 
expected  his  sympathy. 

The  peril  of  their  own  lives  afflicted  them  less  than  the  imminent 
ruin  of  many  old  and  worthy  families.  They  implored  the  Duke 
to  secure  an  indemnity  for  all  who  would  promise  to  live  peaceably 
at  home,  and  liberty  for  others  to  "  pass  the  rest  of  their  lives 
beyond  seas."  He  would  thus  strengthen  himself  by  the  gratitude 
of  many  noblemen  and  gentlemen.- 


232  CHARGES   AGAINST   ARGYLL. 

Meanwhile  Seaforth  was  at  his  castle  of  Brahan,  in  Ross  (Febru- 
ary 18-19),  and,  having  made  his  submission,  appears  to  have 
thought  himself  safe.  "God  forgive  him  and  Huntly,"  writes 
Captain  Straiton  to  Mar  in  France  (February  28  to  March  10). 
But  while  Seaforth  was  ill-thought  of  at  Saint  Germain,  he  had  really 
retired  to  his  great  isle,  the  Lewis,  with  his  men,  while  Huntly 
had  gone  to  London  to  make  his  peace.^  Marischal,  Tullibardine, 
and  Seaforth  hid  in  the  Highlands  and  the  Isles  till  they  could 
escape  to  France,  where  Mary  of  Modena  received  Marischal's 
brother,  the  future  field-marshal,  very  kindly.  "  Had  I  conquered 
a  kingdom  for  her,  she  could  not  have  said  more,"  says  Keith  in 
his  Memoirs.  She  gave  him  1000  livres  out  of  her  poverty,  and 
James  gave  both  brothers,  and  many  of  his  other  followers,  such 
small  pensions  as  he  could  afford.  Seaforth  and  the  two  Keiths 
were  the  mainsprings  of  the  next  rising  in  17 19.  Argyll,  "having 
gloriously  finished  the  most  laborious  and  hard  campaign  that 
ever  was  known,"  says  Rae,  left  Cadogan  to  pacify  the  country, 
and  on  March  5  set  out  for  London,  where  he  was  not  very 
graciously  received.  Cadogan  had  sent  bad  reports  of  him  to 
Marlborough,  who  was  actually  receiving  an  old  servant  of  James 
IL,  Captain  Floyd,  and  lamenting  the  distresses  of  the  Jacobite 
cause.     He  wept, — 

"  Down  Marlborough's  eyes  the  streams  of  dotage  flow," — 

and  protested  that  he  would  serve  King  James.*  Cadogan  says 
that  Argyll  "  seemed  thunderstruck  "  when  he  heard  of  the  Jacobite 
retreat  from  Perth,  and  that  while  the  regular  army  was  not  allowed 
to  loot,  Argyll  sent  his  Campbells  a  day's  march  ahead  to  plunder 
the  towns.  Cadogan  wrote  in  French,  that  his  letter  might  be 
shown  to  King  George ;  and  the  Duke  suffered,  in  the  loss  of  his 
posts,  from  this  creature  of  Marlborough.^  It  is  quite  certain  that, 
without  Argyll,  Mackintosh  would  have  entered  Edinburgh,  and  at 
least  secured  recruits  and  supplies ;  while,  with  a  very  small  force 
at  Stirling,  Argyll  held  Mar  far  north  of  the  Forth.  Argyll  alone 
kept  down  the  flame  in  Scotland,  and  being  thus  ungratefully 
treated,  and  at  feud  with  "the  Squadrone"  in  Scottish  politics,  he 
made  his  court  to  the  Prince  of  Wales.  Finding  him  "a  worthless 
giddy-headed  creature,"  says  Lockhart,  he  retired  to  the  country 
and  "seemed  highly  discontented." "  The  nature  of  the  offence 
for  which  he  was  deprived  of  his  command  was  probably  no  more 


JAMES   DISCHARGES   BOLINGBROKE.  233 

than  the  reports  of  Cadogan  and  the  intrigues  of  the  double-faced 
Marlborough. 

Meanwhile,  in  France,  James  was  discarding  Bolingbroke  for 
much  the  same  sort  of  reasons  as  influenced  George  in  his  treat- 
ment of  Argyll.  On  touching  at  Gravelines  James  had  at  once 
appointed  Mar  to  the  highly  confidential  post  of  Gentleman  of  the 
Bedchamber.'^  This  boded  ill  for  Bolingbroke,  for  Mar  had  won 
the  king  by  his  apparent  sacrifices  for  the  Cause,  and  Mar  needed 
a  scapegoat  to  bear  the  sins  of  his  own  failure.  On  February  26- 
27  James  was  to  lie  in  a  house  near  Saint  Germain,  as  he  was  not 
allowed  to  reside  with  his  mother,  whom  he  naturally  desired  to 
see.  Here  he  was  to  meet  Ormonde,  Mar,  and  Bolingbroke.^  On 
March  4,  i  7  1 6,  we  find  Bolingbroke,  in  a  letter  to  Mar,  conscious 
that  he  will  be  blamed  for  not  sending  ammunition  to  the  army, — 
"  I  shall  not  be  much  disturbed  at  the  reflection."^ 

Now  Hamilton,  the  defeated  of  Sheriflfmuir  and  James's  envoy 
to  France,  had  reported  unfavourably  of  Bolingbroke.  He  had 
told  him  that  the  army  at  Perth  had  not  7  cwt.  of  powder,  and 
Dillon,  who  was  present,  told  this  to  the  Regent.  The  Regent 
ordered  6000  cwt.  of  powder  to  be  sent  immediately  to  Scotland, 
and  complained  that  Hamilton  had  not  been  brought  to  see  him. 
Bolingbroke  never  brought  Hamilton  to  him,  and  this  was  reckoned 
neglect  of  duty,  as  the  serious  concern  of  the  Regent  for  James 
was  apt  to  evaporate,  while  Hamilton  might  have  kept  it  alive. 
The  Comte  de  Castel  Blanco  also  complained  that,  while  he  was 
ready  to  forfeit  20,000  crowns  of  his  own  to  send,  in  breach  of 
guarantee,  the  arms  and  ammunition  of  the  Cause  which  had  been 
stopped  at  Havre,  his  action  was  countermanded,  apparently  by 
Bolingbroke,  in  December.^^  On  March  5  Mar  wrote  to  General 
Gordon,  dwelling  on  "the  negligence,"  or  worse,  "of  some  people," 
that  is,  Bolingbroke.  On  March  6  James  wrote  to  the  Regent, 
saying  that  a  report  had  arrived  from  his  friends  in  England,  on 
the  strength  of  which  he  was  about  to  deprive  Bolingbroke  of  the 
Seals.  He  had  also  broken  with  Berwick.^^  On  March  1 1  Mar 
writes  to  Captain  Straiton  in  Scotland  about  "  the  mighty  cry 
here  "  against  the  negligence  of  Bolingbroke.  Moreover,  Ormonde 
and  Bolingbroke  cannot  work  together.  On  April  6  Mar  accepted 
the  Seals.  Bolingbroke  (April  21)  told  Dicconson,  who  came  for 
James's  papers,  that  the  English  charges  against  him  were  utterly 
"  false,  virulent,  and  even  contradictory."     Apparently  James  thought 


234        JAMES  INFLUENCED  BY  ATTERBURY. 

that  they  represented  the  opinion  of  the  Enghsh  Tories,  but  "  he 
would  find  it  hard  to  lay  hold  of  the  Tory  party  in  England."  ^^ 
Was  Atterbury,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  concerned  in  the  English 
memorial  against  Bolingbroke?  On  August  28  Mar  wrote  to 
Atterbury,  "  I  need  say  little  of  Bolingbroke,  now  you  know  all 
that  relates  to  him.  .  .  .  It  was  the  previous  knowledge  of  your 
sentiments  of  him  that  determined  the  king  to  act  as  he  did."  -^^  This 
phrase  suggests  that  James  broke  with  Bolingbroke  on  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  Bishop  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  "the  report  from 
England."  But  Bolingbroke  attributed  much  to  the  influence  of  the 
Jacobite  ladies  among  whom  James  tarried  for  some  days,  living  at 
a  house  in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne,  and  seeing  the  Regent's  Secre- 
tary and  the  Spanish  and  Swedish  Ministers,  instead  of  taking 
Bolingbroke's  advice  and  retiring  at  once  to  Lorraine. 

James  may  have  had  a  private  ground  of  grudge  against  his 
Minister.  In  one  of  the  letters  which  passed,  Bolingbroke  defend- 
ing himself  against  charges  made  against  him  in  England,  and  an 
unnamed  writer  replying  with  great  vigour,  this  disputant  avers  that 
at  an  important  meeting  with  Ormonde  in  the  autumn  of  17 15 
Bolingbroke  was  intoxicated.  Now  General  Bulkeley,  who  was  of 
James's  household,  told  Lord  Waldgrave,  who  noted  the  story  in 
his  diary,  that  Bolingbroke  when  drunk  spoke  of  James  in  abusive 
terms.  Ormonde  repeated  his  words  to  Mar;  necessarily  after 
James's  return  to  France  Mar  told  James,  and  Ormonde  was 
obliged  to  corroborate  Mar  in  the  king's  presence.  This  source 
of  vexation  may  have  partly  determined  James  to  dismiss  his  in- 
temperate adviser.^* 

The  influence  of  pretty  Jacobites  would  also  be  exerted  during 
James's  stay  in  the  house  in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne.  Bolingbroke 
and  they  were  no  friends.  The  fair  Olive  Trant  is  found  writing  to 
James  in  terms  which  show  that  he  had  been  in  her  society 
(March  18).'^  Fanny  Oglethorpe  also  writes  to  Mar  (March  28), 
asking  James  to  pardon  a  Mr  Macdonnell  if  his  only  fault  is  in- 
timacy with  Bolingbroke.^^ 

There  was  thus  a  combination  of  causes  to  irritate  James  against 
his  Minister.  It  can  hardly  be  maintained  that  he  lost  much  in 
losing  that  servant,  for  Bolingbroke's  management  of  his  own 
fortunes  at  the  close  of  Queen  Anne's  reign  was  unspeakably 
inei)t.  A  man  who  was  "still  drinking  like  a  fish,"  and  otherwise 
conducting  himself  "  like  a  goat,"  as  Swift  wrote  to  Stella,  was  not 


bolingbroke's  defence.  235 

likely  to  keep  secrets  better  than  the  tattlers  of  Saint  Germain,  whom 
he  accused  of  half  the  mischief.  Berwick  attests  his  capacity, 
industry,  and  honour,  which  outweighs  much  tattle,  and  Berwick 
was  discarded  with  him. 

A  number  of  letters  and  papers  on  Bolingbroke's  affairs  were 
published  in  London  in  1735,  and  immediately  suppressed. ^^ 
They  contain  articles  against  Bolingbroke  (London,  March  16, 
1 7 16),  but  this  cannot  be  the  charge  mentioned  by  James  to  the 
Regent  on  March  6  as  made  by  "a  person  of  confidence  of  my 
party  in  England,"  if  the  dates  are  correct.  The  paper  of  March  16 
is  based  on  Hamilton's  letter  of  February  13.  Bolingbroke,  in 
reply,  said  that  he  knew  of  the  design  to  discard  him  before  the 
neglect  to  send  powder  was  "so  much  as  talked  of."  "The  true 
reason  flows  from  another  source  "  (Atterbury  ?  Mary  of  Modena  ?). 
Later,  Bolingbroke  said  (April  4)  that  he  could  not  speak  out 
"  without  exposing  some  characters  in  such  a  light  as  will  shock 
everybody."  But  he  was  thwarted,  first,  "  by  the  riveted  pre- 
judices of  one  persoti."  This  probably  means  that  James  would 
not  give  up  his  religion,  for  Bolingbroke  maintains  that  all  he 
did  was  on  a  Protestant  footing.  Yet  he  knew,  while  Minister  of 
Queen  Anne,  that  James  would  not  barter  his  faith  for  any  number 
of  crowns. 

Probably  his  religious  grievance  against  James  is  revealed  in  a 
letter  of  Mary  of  Modena  to  her  faithful  retainer,  Dicconson 
(August  30,  1 7 16).  "The  Lord  Bolingbroke  said  one  day  at  his 
table  before  several  people  that  for  his  part  he  never  acted  out 
of  any  love  or  regard  for  the  Chevalier's  person,  but  entirely  in 
obedience  to  his  party  [the  English  Tories].  That  the  Chevalier 
could  keep  no  secret.  .  .  .  That  he  was  blindly  led  by  priests, 
who  had  altered  the  Declaration  worded  by  Bolingbroke,  particu- 
larly in  these  words,  ^  will  protect  the  Church  0/  Efiglafid'  into 
^  will  protect  his  subjects  of  the  Church  of  Englaftd,'  which  is  visibly 
fallacious  and  equivocal."  ^^ 

Bolingbroke's  second  grievance,  by  his  own  showing,  was  that 
James  would  keep  his  mother,  Mary  of  Modena,  informed  of  his 
plans.  James's  own  son  was  to  act  otherwise  to  himself — and  what 
the  queen  knew  "  the  whole  rabble  of  the  Court  of  Saint  Germain  " 
knew.  They  caused  the  third  difficulty.  He  "  broke  all  measures 
with  them."  Later  still,  he  blamed  Ormonde  for  heading  an  English 
cabal   against   him.     He  admitted  that  Mar  constantly,  six  times, 


236  REPLY   TO   BOLINGBROKE. 

wrote  for  ammunition  and  supplies,  but  he  "  did  not  understand 
there  was  any  particular  want  of  powder  more  than  of  any  other 
species "  till  Hamilton  came.  He  "  could  not  speak  plain  "  on 
the  affair  of  Castel  Blanco.  Why,  he  asked,  should  Hamilton 
be  allowed  to  see  the  Regent  ?  Why  not,  as  the  Regent  wished 
to  see  him  ?  He  never  corresponded  with  Marlborough,  but  he 
heard  of  Marlborough's  doings  through  Berwick  and  others.  He 
"  will  never  serve  the  same  people  again,"  and  "  has  withdrawn 
himself  almost  entirely  from  the  world."  A  long  reply  was  written, 
in  which  it  was  urged  that  "an  innocent  man,  with  his  Lordship's 
pen,  could  have  made  a  more  plausible  defence."  It  was  alleged 
that  Bolingbroke  did  deal  with  Marlborough,  who  was  no  friend  of 
Ormonde,  and,  with  truth,  that  Bolingbroke  was  hardly  qualified 
to  preach  Gospel  truth  to  James.  When  with  Ormonde,  on  an 
important  occasion,  he  was  drinking  heavily,  probably  this  was 
the  moment  he  spoke  with  indiscreet  candour  about  James.  Enfi)i, 
James  lost  little  in  losing  Harry  St  John,  though  in  Mar  he  was 
not  more  fortunate.  Bolingbroke  at  once  turned  his  coat,  de- 
voted himself  to  currying  favour  with  Stair,  and,  in  his  letter  to 
Sir  William  Windham  and  by  other  means,  did  his  best  to  obtain 
the  pardon  of  George  and  his  Ministers.  But  he  was  not  allowed 
to  go  home  till  Atterbury's  conspiracy  and  exile.  The  friendship  of 
Bolingbroke  with  the  famous  English  wits,  and  his  own  brilliant 
gifts,  have  won  sympathy  for  a  most  untrustworthy  and  reckless 
politician,  and  have  increased  the  obloquy  in  which  historians 
envelop  the  character  of  "  the  Old  Pretender." 

Meanwhile  "Jamie  the  Rover,"  as  the  old  Jacobite  song  calls 
him,  shut  out  from  Lorraine,  lurked  in  various  places.  On  March  2 1 
he  was  near  Chalons -sur-Marne.  Far  from  resenting  the  forced 
inhospitality  of  the  Due  de  Lorraine,  he  addressed  him  in  terms 
of  the  most  sincere  gratitude.  "  I  should  be  the  lowest  of  mankind 
if  I  cherished  any  other  sentiment.  .  .  .  You  know  my  heart, 
and  I  know  yours ;  I  do  justice  to  your  feelings,  as  I  trust  that  you 
do  to  mine.  Excuse  this  little  expression  of  my  emotion,  which  I 
cannot  resist.  It  will  convince  you  that  my  gratitude  and  affection 
will  never  change  with  changes  of  time  and  place.  Believe  me,  I 
hope  sincerely  that  absence  cannot  undo  our  close  friendship,  which 
I  trust  may  exist  between  us  till  the  last  moment  of  my  life.  .  .  . 
French  regard  for  French  interests  does  not  permit  me  to  stay  long 
in  France ;  my  regard  for  your  interests  prevents  me  from  lingering 


VIRTUES  OF  JAMKS.  237 

in  Lorraine,  and  it  is  decided  that  I  go  to  Avignon  to  await  replies 
from  Sweden.  .  .  .  Our  poor  Scots  have  escaped  into  the  hills — 
a  death  by  slow  fire :  God  knows  how  they  will  exist,  and  what 
manner  of  terms  they  may  obtain,  resourceless  as  they  are.  I  have 
sent  them  two  ships  in  the  hope  of  saving  some  of  them.  You  will 
have  been  touched  by  the  death  of  poor  Lord  Derwentwater :  he 
died  as  a  true  Christian  hero.  .  .  .  My  news  are  sad  indeed,  and 
crushing  to  me  who  thought  myself  in  a  manner  happy,  while  I  was 
alone  in  my  misfortunes,  but  the  deaths  and  disasters  of  others  of 
which  I  am  the  innocent  cause  pierce  my  heart"  (March  21,  1716).^^ 

The  king  seldom  spoke  out :  in  this  letter  he  shows  his  heart. 
But  in  his  position,  and  with  his  upbringing,  he  believed  that  cease- 
less enterprise  was  his  duty  both  to  himself  and  to  the  country 
whereof  he  was  king  by  right  of  birth.  Perhaps  no  man  of  his  age, 
twenty-seven,  and  in  his  day,  would  have  announced  to  Europe  that 
he  left  his  cause  to  his  country,  and  that  he  would  never  stir  or 
encourage  his  adherents  to  move  till  he  was  summoned  home  by 
the  British  Parliament.  Yet  in  that  course  alone  lay  the  chance  of 
rest,  peace,  and  happiness  for  James  and  the  three  kingdoms. 
Meanwhile  he  assured  the  Regent  of  France  of  his  gratitude  and 
friendship.  "  I  am  charmed,"  he  wrote  to  the  Regent's  secretary, 
"by  his  frankness  and  sincerity  towards  myself.  These  are  his 
own,  the  rest  is  an  inevitable  submission  to  political  necessity."  2* 
Early  in  April,  James,  Mar,  and  Ormonde  were  settled  at  Avignon. 
In  the  old  and  beautiful  pontifical  city  on  the  Rhone  Fanny 
Oglethorpe  told  Mar  that  she  feared  they  "would  be  a  little 
dull." 

Meanwhile,  in  Scotland,  there  was  "nothing  but  an  entire  desola- 
tion from  Stirling  to  Inverness.  The  Dutch  have  not  left  a  chair 
nor  a  stool,  a  barrel  nor  a  bottle,  enfin,  nothing  earthly  undestroyed," 
and  the  English  troops  are  very  little  more  merciful.  It  was  ex- 
pected that  feudal  superiorities  would  be  abolished,  "  so  that  the 
Duke  of  Argyll  himself  shall  ere  long  have  no  more  than  his 
vote.  .  .  .  Besides,  great  numbers  of  the  common  Highlanders 
will  be  transported.  ...  A  great  many  Roman  Catholics  turn 
Protestants."  So  Menzies  wrote  to  Father  Innes  of  the  Scots 
College  in  Paris. ^^ 

While  James,  at  Avignon,  was  weaving  again  the  Penelopean 
web  of  intrigue,  the  rejoicings  were  "great  in  Lancashire."  It  was 
revealed  to  a  Quaker  in  Lancashire  that  "these  backsliders  from 


238  THE   HANGMAN   AT   WORK. 

the  Truth,  who  profanely  call  themselves  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  are  nothing  but  the  Worshippers  of  Baal 
and  Dagon."  The  Kirk  of  Scotland  is  put  in  the  category  of 
Baal-worshippers,  innocent  of  Jacobitism  as  she  was !  "  We  hear 
that  one  of  our  sisters  named  Hannah,  whom  we  hoped  would  have 
held  forth  one  of  these  days,  alas,  she,  even  Hannah,  has  fallen 
down  beneath  one  of  the  half  naked  brauny  Pagans :  tho'  it  is 
hoped  she  may  rise  again,  yet  she  cannot  be  received  into  our 
Bosom,  till  she  be  twin'd  of  the  Bloody  Offspring  of  that  Anakite." 
So  writes  a  Quaker,  "  Gabriel  Button,  on  the  nineteenth  of  the 
ninth  month  of  the  year  called  171 5,"  ^^  or  so  some  mocker  parodies 
the  style  and  ideas  of  the  Quakers. 

The  hangman  went  to  work,  to  the  joy  of  the  enlightened  English. 
Highland  instruments  of  torture,  destined  for  Protestant  martyrs, 
were  exhibited  in  woodcuts  for  the  edification  of  the  loyal.^^  In 
January  17 16  a  Commission  of  Oyer  and  Terminer  was  sent  to 
Lancashire  to  try  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Preston  prisoners  at 
Liverpool.  The  number  executed  at  different  towns,  Lancaster, 
Manchester,  Wigan,  and  so  on,  seems  to  have  been  about 
thirty.^^  The  head  of  Mr  Shuttleworth,  a  Catholic,  was  impaled 
on  the  town  hall  at  Preston.  The  Scottish  victims  were  in  many 
cases  labourers :  most  of  those  who  bear  Highland  names  are 
described  as  gentlemen.  About  a  thousand  prisoners  put  them- 
selves at  the  king's  mercy,  and  prayed  to  be  transported.  The 
entrails  and  hearts  of  the  men  executed  were  burned  in  fires  of 
faggots  at  the  gallow's  foot,  the  bodies  were  quartered.  Among  the 
victims  was  Siddall,  a  Manchester  blacksmith  who  had  led  the 
Sacheverell  mob  :  his  son  was  executed  after  the  'Forty-Five.  The 
mass  of  prisoners  was  sent  to  provide  slave  labour  in  the  colonies. 
In  fact,  except  for  the  absence  of  torture,  illegal  in  England,  the 
Government  handled  their  prisoners  in  the  style  of  the  Scottish 
Government  of  the  Restoration,  after  the  Pentland  Rising,  and  the 
rebellion  crushed  at  Bothwell  Bridge  in  1679.  Nothing  more  or 
less  was  to  be  expected.'-^  Punitive  proceedings  under  Henry  VIII., 
Elizabeth,  and  James  II.  after  Monmouth's  rising  had  been  much 
more  drastic.  Several  prisoners,  even  Highland  prisoners,  were 
acquitted ;  others,  not  of  the  thirty,  were  respited  and  probably 
were  transported.  No  contemporary  Government  would  have  been 
more  lenient. 

The  noble  prisoners  of  Preston,  Derwentwater,  Nithsdale,  Ken- 


TRIAL   OF   THE   JACOBITE   LORDS.  239 

mure,  Carnwath,  Widrington,  and  Wintoun  were  impeached  in 
January  17 16,  and  tried  before  the  English  House  of  Lords.  All 
but  Wintoun  pleaded  guilty,  and  put  themselves  at  the  mercy  of 
King  George.  Nairne  was  pardoned :  tradition  ascribes  his  good 
fortune,  says  Lord  Mahon,  to  the  intercession  of  Stanhope,  who 
had  been  at  Eton  with  him.-°  An  argument  for  severity  might 
be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  Nairne's  son  was  out  with  Prince 
Charles  in  1745;  while  the  Kenmure  of  that  year,  remembering 
the  Kenmure  executed  in  17 16,  went  no  further  in  1745  than 
presenting  Prince  Charles  with  a  barrel  of  beer,  so  says  family 
legend.  Young  Lady  Derwentwater  in  vain  appealed  in  person 
to  King  George,  and  in  vain  did  Lady  Nithsdale  throw  herself 
at  his  feet.  If  there  were  to  be  any  capital  punishments,  the 
king  could  not  have  subordinates  executed,  men  perhaps  "forced 
out,"  while  he  spared  the  responsible  leaders.  George  may  have 
been  as  reluctant  to  consent  to  the  deaths  of  these  men  as  James 
was  to  assent  to  the  burning  of  the  Perthshire  villages.  Yet  the 
House  of  Commons  was  inclined  to  lenity.  Sir  Richard  Steele, 
of  course,  though  a  Whig,  was  all  for  mercy,  and  only  a  majority 
of  seven  carried  Walpole's  motion  for  adjournment  till  the  first  of 
March,  after  the  executions.-'^  By  a  smaller  majority  the  Lords 
voted  an  address  to  George  for  a  reprieve  to  such  of  the  captive 
nobles  as  deserved  his  mercy.  Nairne,  Carnwath,  and  Widrington, 
"who  showed  little  tenacity  at  Preston,"  received  the  benefit  of 
the  royal  clemency,  which,  however,  did  not  retain  in  office 
Nottingham,  his  son  Lord  Finch,  and  his  brother  Lord  Aylesford, 
active  in  the  address  for  reprieve.  These  are  Sir  Robert  Walpole's 
"family  of  the  Dismals,"  and  Horace  Walpole's  "black  funereal 
Finches."  Lord  Nithsdale's  famous  escape  in  the  costume  of  his 
heroic  wife  was  made  on  the  night  before  the  day  of  execution. 
Despite  the  lady's  own  published  narrative,  it  is  hard  to  believe 
that  escapes  like  this,  of  Argyll  from  prison  in  Edinburgh,  or  of 
James  Mor  Macgregor  later,  are  ever  made  without  collusion.  In 
James  Mor's  case  it  had  already  been  schemed  that  he  should  get 
clear,  as  a  useful  tool  of  Government ;  and  Charles  II.  certainly 
did  not  want  to  detain  Argyll,  and  refused  to  have  him  rearrested 
in  London. 

On  February  24  the  beloved  and  long  -  lamented  Derwentwater 
suffered  on  Tower  Hill.  He  confessed  his  faith  as  a  Catholic, 
withdrew  his  plea  of  guilty,  and  acknowledged   his   rightful   king, 


240  DUNCAN   FORBES   IN    FAVOUR   OF   MERCY. 

whose  lament  for  him  as  a  Christian  and  a  hero  we  have  given. 
The  bulk  of  his  estates  was  settled  on  Greenwich  Hospital.  Ken- 
mure,  like  Derwentwater,  renewed  his  profession  of  loyalty  to 
James,  His  estates  are  still  in  the  possession  of  his  descendant 
in  the  female  line.  Wintoun  was  tried,  and,  being  refused  counsel, 
conducted  his  own  defence  with  rough  humour.  He  was  allowed 
to  escape  from  the  Tower :  it  is  hardly  credible  that  there  was 
no  connivance  at  these  evasions.  The  escape  of  Charles  Wogan, 
Brigadier  Mackintosh,  Talbot,  "the  Crow,"  and  others,  from  New- 
gate (May  4),  was  due  to  their  own  fists.  They  knocked  down  the 
keeper  and  turnkey,  disarmed  the  sentinel,  and  walked  out  of  the 
yard  into  the  streets.  Several  were  retaken,  but  Charles  Wogan 
entered  a  house  and  made  his  way  over  the  roofs  to  a  place  of 
safety.^^ 

Colonel  Oxburgh  was  executed  on  May  1 1,  and  his  head  was 
set  up  over  Temple  Bar, — an  unhappy  survival  of  the  manners  of 
the  Trojans,  as  described  in  the  Iliad.  London  juries  were  lenient, 
and  acquitted  Townley  and  Tildesley,  while  a  fresh  jury,  to  gratify 
the  judge,  found  Captain  Nicholas  Wogan  guilty. ^^  But  Nicholas 
lived  to  be  very  busy  in  Atterbury's  plot,  to  lose  an  arm  at  Fonte- 
noy,  and  to  fight  in  Scotland  with  Prince  Charles,  as  we  have 
seen.  In  addition  to  these,  two  out  of  twenty-four  condemned 
prisoners  were  executed  in  July — namely,  Mr  Hall,  J. P.,  of  Otter- 
burn,  and  the  Rev.  William  Paul,  a  Non -juror,  who  died  very 
manfully,  wishing  that  he  "  had  quarters  enough  to  send  to  every 
parish  in  England."  Mr  Edward  Swinburne  of  Capheaton,  with 
several  others,  died  in  prison. 

It  would  not,  perhaps,  have  been  safe,  and  it  was  deemed  im- 
politic, to  try  and  to  hang  in  Scotland  the  prisoners  taken  in  that 
country.  No  man  had  been  more  serviceable  to  the  cause  of" 
Hanover  and  of  the  Union  than  Duncan  Forbes  of  Culloden.  He 
had  smoothed  the  way  for  the  repentant  and  useful  Lovat's  capture 
of  Inverness, — a  very  heavy  blow  to  the  Jacobite  Cause, — and  gener- 
ally had  worked  for  the  security  of  the  north  of  Scotland.  No  man 
knew  his  countrymen  better  than  Culloden,  and  he  wrote,  or  is 
said  to  have  written,  an  anonymous  letter  to  Sir  Robert  Walpole, 
George  I.  being  then  absent  in  Hanover.  He  declared  that  the 
British  Ministry  was  "pursuing  measures  ruinous  to  Scotland." 
But  the  prisoners  were  tried  in  England,  at  Carlisle,  in  November.^*' 
This  was  an  insult  to  Scottish  justice,  and  a  national  subscription^ 


LETTER   ASCRIBED   TO   FORBES.  24 1 

was  raised,  while  eminent  advocates  were  sent  across  the  Border 
to  instruct  the  Enghsh  barristers  retained  by  the  accused.  "  The 
Government  was  so  fastidiously  attentive  to  English  privileges  that 
it  would  not  shift  prosecutions  from  one  county  to  another  without 
an  Act  of  Parliament,  while  a  multitude  of  Scottish  captives  were 
removed  for  trial  in  England  without  a  thought."  ^^  These  proceed- 
ings were  so  clearly  dangerous  that,  while  several  prisoners  were 
condemned,  not  one  was  executed. 

Secondly,  urged  Culloden,  many  prisoners  were  detained  in  gaol. 
Thirdly,  "a  vast  number  of  Scots  gentlemen  and  noblemen  were 
attainted."  Fourthly,  it  was  put  out  of  the  king's  power  to  grant 
any  portion  of  the  forfeited  estates.  Fifthly,  "  a  Commission  was 
appointed  for  inquiry,  and  for  levying  the  rebels'  goods  and 
chattels."  Now,  argued  Culloden,  there  were  not  two  hundred 
gentlemen  in  Scotland  who  were  not  of  near  kin  to  one  or  other 
of  the  insurgents.  They  could  not  endure  to  witness  such  vast 
ruin  of  their  kin,  and  the  discontents  would  be  most  dangerous. 
Thousands  of  innocents  would  wander  about  the  country,  provoking 
pity  and  indignation.  The  case  of  creditors  under  the  Forfeiture 
Bill  was  especially  hard.  The  whole  country  hoped  that  the  king 
"will  overturn  that  fatal  Bill."  If  not,  a  standing  army  would  be 
necessary:  that  would  cost  ^100,000.  The  forfeited  estates  were 
not  worth  ;!^2o,ooo,  for  men  of  w-ealth  had  kept  clear  of  the 
Rising.  Culloden  suggested  measures  of  security,  and  denounced 
the  Squadrone,  now  in  power,  as  a  set  of  men  long  detested  by  the 
country,  and  now  busy  in  blackening  the  reputation  of  Argyll. 
Cadogan's  intrigues,  already  noticed,  Culloden  denounced.  He 
had  insisted  on  pursuing  the  clans  into  the  hills,  and  had  been 
reduced  "  to  save  his  own  shame  in  making  articles  with  a  puny 

Highland  chief,  G ."     In  this  unworthy  style  Culloden  indicates 

Glengarry,  in  no  way  "  puny,"  but  "  famous  for  obtaining  conditions 
of  the  British  general,  which  afterwards  were  ratified  by  a  formal 

remission."     "  G "  had  recently  been  in  Edinburgh  welcomed 

at  the  councils  of  the  Squadrone.  "  He  is  the  worthlessest  rogue 
living,"  says  Culloden,  who  himself  was  hand  and  glove  with  the 
gracious  Lovat.  The  writer,  who  is  vastly  interested  in  Argyll, 
ends  his  letter  with  a  threat,  very  astonishing  from  such  a  person. 
The  editor  of  the  'Culloden  Papers'  (181 5)  publishes  this  piece 
from  a  copy  of  an  extant  example  in  the  hand  of  Forbes  of 
Culloden,  but  it  is  natural  to  doubt  his  authorship.     Lovat  informs 

VOL.    IV.  Q 


242  ALL   SCOTLAND   IRRITATED. 

CuUoden  that,  by  the  account  of  Ross  of  Kilravock,  "  Glengarry  is 
the  greatest  knave  on  earth  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll,"  and  this  might 
account  for  Forbes's  wrath  against  Glengarry  (April  7,  1716).^^  But 
it  would  be  rash  to  dogmatise  on  the  authorship,  though  the  plea 
for  mitigation  of  severity  is  much  in  Forbes's  manner :  his  enemies 
declared  that  he  was  a  Jacobite. ^^ 

Even  the  principal  officers  of  the  crown  for  Scotland  shared  the 
emotions  which  are  expressed  in  the  anonymous  letter  attributed 
to  Culloden.  The  brother  of  Stair,  Sir  David  Dalrymple,  the  Lord 
Advocate,  complained  that  he  was  hardly  spoken  to  at  Court.  He 
wrote  to  Stair  that  the  Forfeited  Estate  Bill  "is  by  much  the  worst 
I  ever  saw."  The  Prince  of  Wales,  then  much  under  the  influence 
of  Argyll,  was  said  to  be  for  amending  it.  During  King  George's 
absence  on  the  Continent,  the  Prince  held  a  kind  of  regency  with- 
out the  title  of  Regent ;  but  Argyll  was  technically  "  disgraced  "  on 
a  charge  of  bullying  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  a  charge  denied  by 
that  official  himself.^*  Sir  David  Dalrymple's  opposition  to  the 
treatment  of  Scotland  caused  him  so  much  discomfort  that  he 
went  abroad,  and  Stair  was  unofficially  warned  of  his  brother's 
discredit.  Dalrymple  must  implicitly  obey  Roxburghe,  now  a 
duke,  who  was  Secretary  for  Scotland  and  had  the  confidence  of 
George  I.^^  The  English  Government,  in  short,  had  irritated  all 
Scotland,  which  was  without  means  to  resist,  as  nothing  could 
reconcile  the  majority  to  the  Jacobite  alternative. 

The  one  person  who  profited  by  the  Rising  of  1 7 1 5  was  the 
rogue  Lovat.  The  country  had  been  harried  and  plundered,  trade 
had  been  hampered,  the  Presbyterian  ministers  had  been  "  teased  " 
by  jovial  cavaliers,  the  cess  money  had  been  raised  by  Mar  and 
spent  on  everything  but  ammunition.  On  every  side  fortunes  had 
been  wrecked  and  homes  made  desolate.  Argyll  had  lost  place 
and  power,  but  Lovat  secured  the  escheat  of  his  rival  for  the  chief- 
ship  of  the  Frasers,  Mackenzie  of  Fraserdale,  while  he  and  General 
Wightman  divided  the  silver  plate  of  that  unfortunate  Jacobite. 
Argyll  prevailed  on  the  chief  of  the  Grants  to  give  the  hand  of  his 
sister  to  the  double  traitor.  It  cost  Lovat,  now  Lord  Lovat,  some 
pains  to  attain  all  his  desire,  and  in  17 16  his  retainers,  if  not  him- 
self helped  themselves  to  the  horses  of  Dunbar  of  Thunderton. 
Pcena^  pede  daudo,  was  on  the  track  of  this  miscreant,  but  thirty 
years  passed  before  she  reached  him.''"  The  Squadrone  cannot 
have  been   wholly  evil,   for   its   members,   as   Lovat  complains  to 


WODROW   ON   THE   RISING.  243 

Forbes  of  Culloden,  "have  resolved  to  do  their  best  to  ruin  me 
du  fond  en  comble,  to  break  me  as  to  my  commissions  and  my  gift, 
and  to  set  up  a  Fraserdale  in  odium  of  Argyll  and  of  myself  as  his 
partisan."  The  Squadrone  sided  with  Montrose  against  Argyll,  for 
the  old  feuds  of  Graham  and  Campbell  were  still  full  of  life  under 
the  new  conditions  of  society. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  the  whole  affair  of  the  Rising  affected 
a  simple  citizen  like  Wodrow,  the  learned  historian  and  minister  of 
Eastwood.  He  attributed  the  trouble  to  the  remnant  of  Cathol- 
icism, never  sufficiently  persecuted  by  William  III.,  and  to  the 
Episcopalian  clergy  of  the  north,  "  the  outed  clergy,"  who  had 
been  tolerated  "in  such  odd  and  boundless  terms  as  want  a  parallel 
in  any  established  Church."  The  Patronage  Act  had  also  strength- 
ened the  hands  of  the  disaffected  gentry,  "and  kept  great  numbers 
of  parishes  vacant."  The  Presbyterian  clergy  had  been  driven  from 
their  pulpits  in  the  Mearns  and  Angus  by  methods  "worse  than 
Turkish";  but  what  the  special  atrocities  were  Wodrow  "blushes 
to  write."  In  fact,  letters  from  ministers  in  the  Mearns  say  that 
they  "have  been  obliged  to  leave  their  churches  and  preach  in 
their  own  houses," — which  hardly  reached  the  Ottoman  level  of 
ferocity.  In  other  cases  preachers  are  said  to  have  been  "driven 
from  their  houses  and  plundered,"  like  the  conformists  in  1 688-1 689. 
Cadogan  was  much  more  affable  to  the  afflicted  ministers  than 
Argyll,  on  whom  "  a  great  many  waited  but  could  not  get  a  word 
from  him."  At  Arngask  the  Highlanders,  namely  the  Macgregors, 
robbed  a  congregation  of  their  Bibles  and  their  boots.  Rob  Roy 
was  reckoned  "the  fairest  and  most  discreet  among  them."  His 
clan  seems  by  this  account  to  have  plundered  in  a  general  way; 
but  no  one  else  is  charged  with  such  cold-blooded  acts  as  Lord 
George  Murray,  in  the  burning  at  Auchterarder.  One  Highlander, 
indeed,  sold  a  Bible,  which  he  had  stolen,  to  a  woman,  and  then 
resumed  possession  of  the  book  without  restoring  the  purchase- 
money.  An  honest  merchant  at  Montrose  was  compelled  to  drink 
the  health  of  the  Pretender,  but,  conversis  rebus,  he  extracted  a  fine 
from  his  assailants,  who  drank  King  George's  health  with  him  !  ^^ 
Perhaps  Wodrow's  remarks  on  the  more  than  Turkish  iniquities 
of  the  clans  may  be  a  trifle  exaggerated. 

The  majority  of  Scots  at  this  time,  while  relieved  from  the 
terrors  of  Popery  and  the  Pretender,  writhed  under  the  sense  of 
being  citizens  of  a  conquered   country, — their  laws  trampled  on  ; 


244  CLANRANALD  ON   THE  SITUATION. 

their  counsels  rejected ;  their  friends  ruined  and  exiled ;  their 
hero,  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  disgraced.  They  had  to  endure  as 
best  they  might,  and  cast  no  wistful  eyes  on  the  exiled  Court 
and  king  at  Avignon.  The  Court  there  was  being  overcrowded 
with  fugitive  Jacobites,  for  whom  James  tried,  with  little  success, 
to  secure  commissions  in  the  armies  of  Spain  and  Sweden.  France 
could  not  and  would  not  help,  for  she  was  negotiating  the  Triple 
Alliance  with  England  and  Holland,  a  condition  of  which  was  that 
James  must  be  driven  across  the  Alps  to  Italy,  where  he  would  be 
more  remote,  and  the  more  distrusted  at  home  as  a  guest  and  pen- 
sioner of  "that  odious  beast  and  lecherous  swine,  the  Pope  of 
Rome,"  to  quote  the  edifying  recantation  of  a  canon  of  St  Andrews, 
written  when  Knox  was  in  that  city,  in  the  spring  of  1560.  The 
view  of  the  Papal  character  thus  tersely  expressed  was  very  general 
in  Scotland,  hence  the  anxiety  of  the  English  Government  to  drive 
James  into  the  arms  of  the  Pope. 

A  number  of  Jacobite  gentlemen  had  been  driven  to  Ultima 
Thule,  to  Ormaclett  in  South  Uist,  whence  (April  22)  Clanranald, 
the  son  of  the  chief  slain  at  Sheriffmuir,  wrote  to  Mar  concerning 
their  fortunes.  His  letter  is  singularly  well  expressed,  and  shows  a 
loyal  heart  as  well  as  an  accomplished  education.  Many  gentle- 
men, he  said,  were  leaving  on  the  Marie  Thirese,  a  ship  sent  by 
James  with  supplies.  They  believed  that  the  money  left  for  them 
by  James  at  his  departure  had  been  dishonestly  distributed.  Clan- 
ranald gave  Mar  a  full  account  of  the  movements  of  the  army 
which  Mar  and  James  had  deserted  at  Montrose.  "  I  was  both 
sorry  and  vexed  to  see  the  effect  which"  the  king's  letter  of 
farewell  **  produced  on  some.  .  .  .  For  my  own  part,  I  was  the 
less  surprised,  ...  as  I  had  long  foreseen  things  must  have 
ended  in  this  or  a  more  fatal  point,  which  made  me  bless  the 
happy  genius  that  saved  our  king,  though  he  could  not  save  the 
country."  Thus  delicately  did  Clanranald  break  to  Mar  the  news 
of  the  disgust  of  the  leaders  and  army.  It  becomes  plain  that  the 
Earl  Marischal  was  among  the  most  angry,  and  that  between  him 
and  Mar  the  feud  was  to  be  irreconcilable,  "a  settled  grudge." 
It  was  Marischal  who  summoned  Huntly  to  join  the  army,  still 
undispcrsed ;  but  Huntly  burned  the  carriages  of  the  guns  meant 
for  the  siege  of  Inverness  and  buried  the  cannons,  "in  reality  lest 
we  should  attack  Inverness  with  them."  Clanranald  was  still  full 
of  fight,   but  Glengarry  made  terms  for  himself;   and   Clanranald 


STRANGE   ADVENTURES   AT   AVIGNON.  245 

and  the  rest  soon  saw  that  exile  was  to  be  their  fate.  The  news 
reached  Avignon,  being  carried  by  Captain  Sheridan  (the  Sir  Thomas 
Sheridan  of  1745,  Prince  Charles's  tutor),  on  May  19.^^ 

To  Avignon  set  the  tide  of  refugees,  among  them  a  sinister  figure, 
a  Captain  Macdonald,  "a  shag-faced  thin  fellow,  and  is  a  very  great 
rogue,"  writes  Arbuthnot  from  Rouen,  June  11,  lyiG.^^  This 
appears  to  be  the  Macdonald  mentioned  (August  13)  by  Menzies, 
the  Jacobite  agent  in  London,  to  Father  Innes,  S.J.  In  any 
case,  Menzies  speaks  of  a  Macdonald  to  whom  the  English 
Government  offered  the  pay  and  position  of  a  spy  on  James. 
He  was  advised  by  a  Jacobite,  Mr  Philips,  to  accept  the  post, 
but  to  deceive  his  employers.  When  Macdonald  set  out  "zvi/k 
that  Colonel"  (Colonel  Douglas,  Stair's  emissary  against  James  in 
November  17 15?),  English  Jacobites  were  alarmed,  spys  Menzies.'*'^ 

This  Macdonald  arrived  at  Avignon  and  told  James  his  errand, 
and  that  he  had  come  by  the  advice  of  Jacobite  friends.  The 
English  thought  him  their  spy,  but  he  was  there,  as  a  loyal  subject, 
to  mislead  his  employers.  So  Mar  wrote  from  Avignon  to  Menzies 
on  July  16.  "  He  is  to  be  sent  from  hence  one  of  these  days," 
adds  Mar.^^  He  was  expelled  from  the  town,  with  no  money,  and 
with  the  intention  of  going  to  Lyons,  as  we  know  from  two  undated 
notes  of  his.  The  date  is  certainly  after  July  16,'*-  to  judge  from 
Mar's  letter  of  that  day.  But  on  July  3  Lord  Stair  enters  in  his 
accounts  for  extraordinary  services,  "July  3,  paid  for  Alexander 
Macdonald  at  Lyons,  for  his  Majesty's  service,  ;^33,  6s.  8d." 
Alexander  Macdonald  was  the  name  of  this  ambiguous  personage, 
yet,  from  Mar's  letter,  he  seems  to  have  been  at  Avignon  as  late 
as  July  16.  In  any  case  he  made,  as  his  own  notes  show,  for 
Lyons  after  leaving  Avignon.  On  August  1 5  Stair  notes,  *'  Paid 
for  said  Macdonald's  relief  and  subsistence  at  Lyons  and  Geneva, 
after  his  misfortune  at  Avignon,  j[,(i(i,  13s.  4d."'*''  In  September 
Stair  sent  Macdonald  to  England.  On  September  19  Father 
Graeme  writes  from  Calais  to  Mar,  "  If  I  be  not  very  much 
mistaken,  Douglas,  who  undertook  to  murder  the  king  [James], 
arrived  here  yesterday  by  the  pacquet  boat  and  went  straight 
towards  Paris." '*^  It  is  an  obvious  conjecture  that  this  is  the 
Colonel  Douglas  whom  Saint-Simon,  as  we  saw,  accuses  of  having 
been  suborned  by  Stair  to  murder  James  in  1715.^^  After  his 
failure  he  found  doors  closed  on  him  in  Paris,  among  others  that 
of  Saint-Simon  ;  "  soon  afterwards  he  disappeared  from   Paris.      I 


246  LETTER   FROM   AN   ASSASSIN. 

know  not  what  became  of  him."^''  On  August  6,  1715,  James 
himself,  writing  from  Bar,  mentions  a  suspicious  Mr  Douglas  who 
has  been  haunting  the  town.^'''  In  a  letter  from  London,  unsigned 
and  undated,  the  writer  says  that  Stair  has  suborned,  as  assassins, 
a  Mr  Elliot  and  "  Mr  Douglas,  commonly  called  Count."  ^s 

Did  Macdonald,  arriving  in  London  in  September  17 16,  send 
back  this  suspected  Douglas  to  take  his  place,  and  is  he  the 
Douglas  who,  according  to  Saint-Simon,  disappeared  after  his  failure 
to  slay  or  seize  James  in  November  1715  ?  Saint-Simon's  man  had 
been  a  colonel  in  an  Irish  regiment  in  French  service,  disbanded. 
Is  he  '■^  that  Colofiel"  v^'wh.  whom  Alexander  Macdonald  left  London 
for  Avignon  ?  Is  Alexander  identical  with  that  "  Mr  Macdonald 
who  is  going  upon  the  account"  of  the  Elliot- Douglas  murder 
plot  cherished  by  Stair,  according  to  the  anonymous,  dateless 
London  letter  already  cited  ? 

These  may  be  idle  questions,  yet  we  seem  to  reconstruct  the 
figure  of  an  ex-colonel  of  an  Irish  regiment, — a  brave  man,  Saint- 
Simon  admits, — failing  in  a  plot  of  November  1715,  disappearing 
from  Paris,  and  acting  as  a  spy  of  England. 

These  considerations  bring  us  to  their  extraordinary  sequel,  a 
set  of  events  not  easily  explained. 

In  the  manuscripts  of  Cardinal  Gualterio,  the  friend  of  James, 
is  a  letter  to  "  Monsieur  le  Comte  S'Esthers,  ambassadeur  poui 
sa  Majeste  Britannique,  a  Paris,  dans  son  Hostel."  It  is  dated 
Orange,  August  24,  17  16.  The  endorsement  is  (in  French),  Copy 
of  a  letter  intercepted,  addressed  to  Milord  Stairs,  and  signed 
"  La  Grange."  *"     The  epistle,  being  interpreted,  runs  thus  : — 

"  MoNSEiGNEUR, — In  spite  of  all  my  endeavours  I  was  unable 
to  reach  this  Villeje  (sic)  in  time  to  find  the  person  [Macdonald  ?]. 
But  I  inquired  so  adroitly  as  to  discover  that  he  had  been  dis 
missed.  From  the  fashion  of  his  dismissal,  as  described  to  me,  } 
doubt  not  that  he  has  taken  himself  out  of  the  way.  Thus  the 
mission  which  you  confided  to  him  and  me  has  failed.  But, 
monseigneur,  if  you  will  trust  me,  I  believe  that  I  can  succeed 
unaided.  As  long  as  you  employ  foreigners  they  will  never  suc- 
ceed :  only  a  Frenchman  can  escape  detection. 

"I  have  several  plans  for  doing  it.  If  poison  fails,  I  will  make 
use  of  one  of  these  methods  :  either  at  the  Mass,  or  in  the  town, 
or  when  he  is  taking  a  walk.     I  am  confident  that  I  can  do  for 


LETTER   FROM   AN   ASSASSIN.  247 

him,  and  thus  give  repose  to  all  our  [/los/re,  query  vos/re]  nation. 
Whether  I  am  to  hve  or  die,  I  am  resolved  to  destroy  him  ;  I 
am  pledged  to  the  king  [what  king  ?],  and  I  shall  think  my  death 
glorious  if  I  take  the  person's  life. 

"These  are  my  plans.  I  try  daily  to  corrupt  some  one,  so  as 
to  get  a  chance  with  poison  :  it  is  the  shortest  way — send  me  some 
by  /e  nojnme  Desmenis  as  soon  as  you  can,  within  a  fortnight.  I 
have  no  address,  because  I  take  my  meals  here  and  there,  and 
seldom  sleep  in  the  town.  As  Desmenis  knows  this  town  [Avignon], 
he  can  find  me  on  the  bench  at  the  left  hand  of  the  Porte  St 
Michel  any  day  after  September  8.  On  my  arrival  there  [at 
Avignon]  I  shall  wait  at  the  place  mentioned  every  day  from  noon 
to  one  o'clock.  I  missed  the  best  chance  in  the  world.  Having 
left  my  pocket-pistols  at  home  for  fear  of  exciting  suspicion,  I  was 
walking  near  the  town,  and  came  to  a  place  where  the  Chevalier 
de  St  George  with  all  his  suite  was  going  to  amuse  himself  at  a 
convent  about  a  league  away.  I  wanted  rather  to  see  our  man, 
whether  he  was  in  the  suite  or  not,  than  to  see  the  Chevalier.  I 
therefore  left  the  road  and  went  into  a  vineyard.  I  was  greatly 
surprised  not  to  see  nostre  hotnme,  and  cursed  the  day  when  I 
missed  such  a  chance  to  get  rid  of  him  [of  the  Chevalier].  I  could 
have  run  through  the  vines,  and  swum  the  river  before  his  suite 
could  have  got  on  to  the  road  in  the  town  [apparently  so  that  they 
might  cross  the  Rhone  by  the  bridge].  As  he  goes  to  Mass  it  is 
even  easier  to  take  him  off:  the  churches  are  sanctuaries,  and  there 
I  can  escape.  Again,  his  favourite  drive  offers  even  a  better  oppor- 
tunity, as  it  goes  along  the  river,  and  one  can  shoot  him  and  swim. 

"  All  this  I  explain  that  you  may  encourage  Desmenis  :  he  will 
share  the  glory  with  me.  For  double  assurance  let  him  bring  the 
poison  :  we  shall  thus  run  no  risk  at  all.  If  he  is  brave,  as  he  has 
proved  so  well,  we  shall  not  be  obliged  to  stay  here  long.  [Douglas 
had  also  given  proof  of  great  courage.]  I  await  him  with  open 
arms.  Assuring  you  that  I  am  ready  to  die  for  my  king,  and  for 
you,  monseigneur,  my  protector. — With  the  deepest  respect,  your 
very  humble,  affectionate,  and  obedient  servant, 

"  La  Grange. 

"  Okange,  August  24." 

The  person  here  calling  himself  La  Grange  entrusted  his  precious 
effusion  to  a  tailor,  who  appears  to  have  given  it  up  to  the  author- 


248  AN    UNSOLVED   PUZZLE. 

ities.  This  tailor,  later,  on  August  28,  received  another  note  from 
the  author  of  the  letter  to  Stair,  asking  him  to  visit  that  gentleman 
at  his  rooms,  in  company  with  the  bearer  of  the  note,  who  would 
show  the  way.  After  walking  for  two  miles  he  was  attacked  by 
ambushed  men,  who,  having  missed  him  with  their  pistols,  were 
pursuing  him,  when  a  crowd  gathered  and  rescued  him.*  The 
others  fled,  and  the  tailor  wrote  to  Avignon,  enclosing  the  note 
of  invitation,  unsigned,  but  in  the  same  hand  as  the  long  letter 
to  Stair.^'^ 

Next,  the  tailor's  adventure  being  of  August  28,  we  have  Mar's 
letter  from  Avignon,  of  August  31,  to  Sir  Patrick  Lawless.  He 
says  that  he  intends  soon  to  give  full  particulars  "of  a  most  hellish 
design  against  Le  Vasseur  [James],  discovered  by  the  greatest 
accident  in  the  world.  ...  It  will  show  the  world  what  wretches 
Heron  [Hanover,  George  I.]  and  his  people  are.  .  .  ."  But 
it  does  not  appear  that  proofs  of  "Heron's"  iniquity  were  ever 
given  to  the  world.  Sir  Patrick  Lawless  was  James's  agent  in 
Spain. 

Was  La  Grange  a  lunatic?  He  seems  to  have  known  about 
Macdonald's  affair,  if  Macdonald  is  his  nostre  ho7nme,  who  has  been 
expelled  from  Avignon.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the  whole 
business  of  La  Grange  was  concocted  by  the  Jacobites :  it  is  rather 
risky  for  a  practical  joke,  and  there  we  leave  this  little  historical 
puzzle. 

At  this  period,  in  consequence  of  the  Union,  Scotland  had  prac- 
tically no  independent  political  existence,  and  the  interest  of  the 
years  following  1 7 1 5  is  that  of  the  European  and  other  combina- 
tions— the  dreams  of  the  Jacobite  party.  The  publication  of  the 
papers  of  the  exiled  dynasty  contains  much  personal  matter  hitherto 
almost  unsuspected.  We  need  scarcely  dwell  on  the  chimceras  of 
the  Duke  of  Leeds,  whom  Bolingbroke  had  tersely  characterised  as 
"mad."  In  April  1716  James,  not  without  a  smile  we  may  sup- 
pose, had  appointed  the  Duke  to  be  Admiral  and  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  British  Fleet.  Six  years  later  the  Duke,  meeting 
James  at  the  baths  of  Lucca,  returned  the  honourable  but  com- 
promising document.  Admiral  Baker,  commanding  the  Mediter- 
ranean squadron,  had  been  an  officer  under  the  Duke,  whose  idea 

*  Of  this  fray,  my  friend,  Mr  A.  E.  W.  Mason,  being  at  Avignon,  found  a 
record  in  the  town's  archives,  wliicli  lie  copied  :  the  ir.inscript  has  unluckily  been 
mislaid. 


WEBB  OF   WYNENDAEL   A  JACOBITE.  249 

was  to  bring  over  Baker  and  his  ships  to  the  cause  of  the  exile  at 
Avignon.  But  James  had  as  yet  no  answer  to  his  request  for 
permission  to  shelter  his  navy,  when  he  got  one,  in  Swedish  ports, 
and  the  virtue  of  Admiral  Baker  was  not  attempted.''^ 

In  England  the  names,  long  associated  with  struggling  Jacobit- 
ism,  of  Ezekiel  Hamilton  and  Sir  Harry  Goring,  a  rich  squire  of 
Sussex,  begin  to  appear,  with  that  of  Atterbury,  Bishop  of  Rochester 
and  Dean  of  Westminister,  who  had  been  eager  to  proclaim  the 
king,  on  Queen  Anne's  death,  if  Marischal  would  back  him  with 
his  regiment  of  the  Guards.  In  17 15  Atterbury's  name  does  not 
occur  in  the  correspondence,  though  doubtless  he  was  secretly 
engaged.  Ezekiel,  on  April  7,  from  Paris,  reports  the  results  of 
a  mission  to  England.  Atterbury  and  Goring,  with  Lord  Arran, 
thought  it  wise  to  consult  General  Webb, — 

"  As  Paris  handsome  and  as  Hector  brave," — 

the  tall,  vain,  brave  hero  of  Wynendael,  and  the  deadly  foe  of 
Cadogan,  and  of  Marlborough,  who  was  now  smitten  by  apoplexy. 
Webb  was  the  darling  of  the  soldiers.  In  his  characteristic  style 
he  had  told  Sir  Constantine  Phipps  that  with  6000  regular  troops 
he  would  undertake  to  defeat  any  forces  that  could  be  raised  in 
England  for  the  Hanoverian  interest.  His  real  motive,  doubtless, 
was  to  measure  swords  with  Cadogan.  He  determined,  if  a  descent 
in  force  were  made  (but  where  was  the  force  ?),  to  join  the  king  and 
Ormonde,  as  if  Ormonde's  were  still  a  name  to  conjure  with.  His 
Majesty  should  land  as  near  London  as  possible :  the  populace  was 
still  furious  against  the  authors  of  "the  late  cruelties," — incidents  to 
which  the  Georgian  world  was  very  well  accustomed.  But  Ezekiel 
remarked  that,  though  there  was  plenty  of  money  in  England, 
holders  were  stiff.  They  would  ask  to  what  uses  their  money  was 
destined,  and,  if  they  knew,  Government  would  know.  Atterbury 
was  ready  to  annouce  the  great  day,  when  at  hand,  from  the  pulpit, 
and  Dr  Sacheverel  will  "  lift  up  his  voice  like  a  trumpet."  ^-  For 
forty  years  or  more  this  was  the  attitude  of  the  English  Jacobites. 
Let  them  be  able  to  say,  with  Squire  Western,  "Thank  God,  twenty 
thousand  honest  Frenchmen  are  landed  in  Kent,"  and  they  would 
do  wonders.  Twenty  thousand  honest  Swedes,  or  Spaniards,  or 
Irish,  or  Turks,  for  that  matter,  alone  were  needed,  and  "  the  Bark 
would  sink,"  and  the  Exchequer  would  be  closed.  It  would  have 
been  closed,  the  very  Whigs  declared,  if  Forster  had  held  out  for 


250  OXFORD   A   JACOBITE. 

a  week  in  Preston.  Really,  the  Hanoverian  dynasty  seems  to  have 
had  a  tottering  throne,  and  5000  irregulars,  thirty  years  later,  all 
but  overset  it.  Ezekiel  calculated  that  Government  could  not  bring 
6000  men  into  the  field  in  less  than  ten  days ;  but,  alas !  James 
never  could  bring  600  from  abroad. 

Atterbury,  with  some  sense,  suggested  that  James  should  issue 
an  explanation  of  his  flight  from  Scotland.  A  pamphlet  called 
'The  Hue  and  Cry  after  the  Pretender'  had  appeared,  written 
with  a  humorous  brutality  not  unworthy  of  Swift,  and  accusing 
James  of  a  censurable  coldness  towards  the  fair  sex, — "A  laggard 
in  love  and  a  dastard  in  war  "  was  his  character.  The  Apology  ^^ 
replies,  truly  enough,  that  the  indolence  of  Huntly,  the  desertions 
of  the  Highlanders,  the  weakness  and  want  of  supplies  of  the 
Jacobites,  with  the  Dutch  reinforcements  of  Argyll,  made  Perth 
untenable,  and  that  James's  "duty  to  his  people"  rendered  his 
flight  inevitable,  and  that  his  presence  would  only  increase  the 
vigour  with  which  all  his  scattered  bands  would  be  pursued.  The 
reluctance  of  Mar  to  go,  the  tenacity  with  which  the  Earl  Marischal 
refused  to  go,  are  stated ;  and  James's  orders  to  Gordon  to  com- 
pensate the  burned-out  villagers  are  reported,  but  the  report  was 
disbelieved.  The  courage  of  James  in  braving,  with  three  com- 
panions, the  minions  of  Stair  in  his  journey  to  the  coast,  and 
again  in  travelling  to  Dunkirk,  are  lovingly  dwelt  upon,  and  he 
is  declared  to  possess  "all  the  great  and  good  qualities  that  are 
necessary  for  making  a  people  every  way  happy."  Mar  drew  up 
the  paper ;  Father  Innes  revised  it ;  James  approved  of  it.  But 
the  people  whom  he  was  so  anxious  to  make  happy  remained 
unconvinced.^*  Unexpected  as  is  the  Jacobitism  of  General  Webb, 
the  intrigues  of  Oxford  (Harley)  are  still  more  surprising.  He  was 
still  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower,  and  seems  to  have  been  approached 
in  James's  interest  by  a  lady  well  known  to  him,  Anne  Oglethorpe 
(Anne  Oglethorpe  to  Mar,  July  9,  17  16).'''* 

It  appears  highly  probable  that  in  their  many  strange  vicissitudes, 
the  Stuart  Papers,  now  in  Windsor  Castle,  have  been  tampered 
with.  Sir  Walter  Scott  saw  letters  which  have  never  been  seen 
again.  Sir  James  Mackintosh  saw,  at  Carlton  House,  a  letter 
from  Oxford  which  neither  Lord  Mahon  (Stanhope)  nor  the  very 
careful  Editor  of  the  papers  was  able  to  discover.  It  appears, 
but  dimly,  that  Oxford  was  to  try  to  move  the  Regent  of  France;  it 
is  more  certain  that  his  messenger  was  no  other  than  that  unhappy 


ESCAPE  OF  OXFORD   (1717).  25  I 

Ogilvie  who,  in  1708,  had  wretchedly  served  him  as  a  spy  on  his 
friends,  the  Jacobites.  Ogilvie  had  been  a  most  remorseful  spy : 
now  he  probably  recovered  his  self-respect. 

Ogilvie  visited  Mary  of  Modena  in  Paris,  and  went  on  to 
Avignon,  whence  Mar  (September  21)  wrote  a  letter  for  him  to  carry 
to  Oxford.  Mar  professed  to  believe  that  Oxford  had  always  been 
a  friend  of  the  Cause  though  thwarted  by  "  others," — Bolingbroke. 
Oxford  will  find  James  "every  way,  perhaps,  the  finest  gentleman 
you  ever  knew."  But  Oxford  never  knew  him.  Walpole,  early 
in  1 71 7,  resigned,  and  presently  combined  with  the  Tories  in 
securing  the  failure  to  try  Oxford,  with  his  consequent  release, 
in  July.^^  Mar's  letter  to  Oxford  mainly  referred  to  James's  hopes 
from  Charles  XII.  of  Sweden.^^  Ogilvie  carried  a  document  ap- 
pointing Atterbury  his  chief  agent  in  England  :  in  the  cypher  he 
is  "Mr  Rigg."  He  mistrusted  Oxford,  but  was  told  that  Oxford 
was  now  a  loyal  man.^  Shrewsbury,  too,  was  in  communication 
with  James :  Shrewsbury  was  not  happy,  for  the  Jacobite  agents 
had  managed  to  misdirect  and  lose  a  letter  written  by  him.  James 
informed  him  of  the  hopes  from  Sweden,  which  were  so  soon  to  be 
dashed  as  usual.  It  is  amazing  that  discontent  induced  so  many 
men  of  fortune  to  deal  with  ex-spies,  and  the  sanguine  servants  of 
an  impossible  Cause.  Yet,  till  Atterbury's  turn  came,  none  of 
these  rash  venturers  was  betrayed.  Mar  was  even  obscurely  trying 
to  tamper  with  Islay,  and  through  him  with  Argyll,  whose  disgrace 
was  recent.  The  attempt  was  later  renewed.  The  Marquis  of 
Wharton  was  offering  his  alliance,  and  asking  James  for  the  Garter' 
(September  25).''^  While  George's  thanes  were  thus  discontented, 
the  Court  at  Avignon  was  rent  by  the  arrival  of  the  Earl  Marischal, 
full  of  his  grievances  against  Mar.  Apart  from  the  question  of 
Mar's  flight,  there  was  a  dispute  about  a  verbal  message  as  to 
Marischal's  share  with  Mar  in  the  command  of  the  Rising  of  17 15, 
apparently  part  of  Lord  John  Drummond's  premature  and  fatal 
communication  to  Mar  in  July  of  that  year.'^ 

There  was  also  trouble  about  an  attempt  by  Mar  to  conduct  a 
negotiation  privately  with  Argyll  in  December  17 15.  In  Mar's 
defence  he  averred  that  Argyll,  or  those  about  him,  "were  in  a 
manner  engaged"  to  give  Mar  notice  before  advancing  against 
Perth. ^^  This  is  very  vague ;  but  Mar  was  apprehensive  that  his 
remarks,  which  are  dim,  might  reach  the  Duke,  whom  he  thought 
it  not   impossible   to   enlist.     It  is  conceivable  that  Argyll  would 


252  ILLNESS  OF  JAMES. 

have  liked  to  see  the  Jacobite  force  at  Perth  break  up  and  go 
home  without  the  shedding  of  Scottish  blood. 

The  two  serious  affairs  in  the  history  of  the  Jacobite  party,  in 
1 7 1 6,  were  their  attempts  to  secure  the  favour  of  the  Regent  and 
to  form  an  alliance  with  Charles  XII.,  who  had  excellent  reasons 
for  lowering  the  power  of  George.  As  to  the  Regent,  as  he  was 
weaving  the  Triple  Alliance  with  Holland  and  England,  his  one 
desire  was  to  secure  the  removal  of  James  from  Avignon.  On 
June  14  de  Magny  told  Mary  of  Modena  at  third  hand  that  the 
Regent  had  observed,  "  I  shall  not  be  left  in  peace  till  I  have 
made  the  king  leave  Avignon."  "  How  will  you  make  him  do  so," 
asked  the  confidant,  "as  you  have  no  means  of  doing  so?"  "Yes, 
I  have,"  said  the  Regent,  "namely,  by  means  of  starvation."^ 
He  could  stop  the  pension  received  by  Mary  from  France,  and 
cut  off  whatever  Sums  of  money  were  doled  out  to  her  son. 

General  Dillon  advised  James  not  to  leave  Avignon  except 
under  force,  and  his  banishment  to  Italy  was  not  carried  out  at 
this  moment.  But  to  him,  as  to  his  son  later,  the  ancient  city 
of  the  Popes  was  to  yield  but  a  brief  and  uncertain  hospitality. 
Stair,  of  course,  was  well  aware  of  all  his  schemes,  through  a 
brother  of  Sir  Thomas  Higgons,  a  member  of  the  Court  at  Saint 
Germain.  He  knew  that  the  chief  hope  was  from  Sweden.  In 
September  James's  health  was  very  bad,  and  he  suffered  a  painful 
but  successful  operation.  "  The  Pretender,"  writes  Stair  to  his 
Government  on  September  12,  "is  sending  away  his  people,  in- 
tending that  his  own  move  [of  invasion],  when  it  takes  place, 
should  be  less  observed."  He  expected  an  attack  on  England, 
with  a  feint  or  diversion  at  Scotland.  Or  again,  merchants'  vessels 
in  the  Mediterranean  are  to  take  James  to  Ireland. ^^ 

Stair  seems  to  have  been  gulled  by  false  news  from  Marseilles 
(September  28)  of  James's  departure  from  Avignon  to  Antibes, 
near  Cannes,  where  four  galleys  were  to  meet  him.  On  October  7 
Stair  reports  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  and  that  the  Regent 
has  told  Queen  Mary  that  her  son  must  quit  Avignon  :  Stair  was 
disinclined  to  believe  in  the  king's  illness  and  operation,  which 
were  genuine.  On  November  25  Stair  was  convinced  of  this,  and 
in  good  hopes  that  James  would  not  recover.  On  December  1 1 
he  had  bad  news :  the  Pretender  was  slowly  recovering.  Mean- 
while James  and  Mary,  says  Stair,  i)ay  to  their  exiled  friends  more 
than  the  whole  amount  of  the  queen's  pension  from   France.     It 


JAMES   DRIVEN    ACROSS   THE   ALPS.  253 

cannot  with   fairness  be  said   that  the  queen  and    her  son   were 
avaricious  and  ungrateful. 

We  have  seen  that  many  of  the  political  prisoners  were  trans- 
ported to  provide  the  colonies  with  unfree  labour.  It  is  therefore 
not  unpleasant  to  learn  from  Stair  that  seventy  rebels  on  the 
voyage  to  Carolina  seized  the  vessel  in  which  they  were  being 
conveyed,  steered  her  to  Bordeaux,  and  seized  all  the  money  and 
goods  on  board.  The  Regent  said  that  he  would  treat  them  as 
pirates.  The  Jacobites  also  bade  their  friends  in  England  be 
wary  of  a  Mr  Johnston.  "I'm  afraid  that  is  our  man,"  says  Stair: 
which  of  his  spies  we  know  not.  By  February  24,  17 16,  James 
had  crossed  the  Alps,  and  entered  on  a  new  portion  of  his  long 
and  weary  pilgrimage.  So  far  his  dealings  with  the  King  of  Sweden 
had  been  indirect  and  interrupted,  though  not  unhopeful.''* 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER   X. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  509. 

2  Stuart  Papers,  i.  512,  513. 

3  Rae,  p.  372. 

*  Menzies  to  Mar,  February  15.     Stuart  Papers,  i.  507. 
^  Coxe's  Marlborough,  iii.  392:  1848. 

®  Lockhart,  ii.  14. 

'  Stuart  Papers,  i.  509. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  536. 

*  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  2. 

^^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  502,  503, 

*^  Stuart  Papers,  li.  5. 

^"  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  105,  106. 

^*  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  386. 

"  Coxe's  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  i.  200,  note  4 :  1798. 

*''  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  23. 

^®  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  43,  44. 

'^  Tindal,  iv.  476  seqq, 

^^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  511. 

i»  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  34,  35. 

-"  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  38,  39. 

■^^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  41,  42. 

'•^-  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  174. 

23  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  185. 

^^  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  192-195, 

"^  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  196-202. 


254  'NOTES. 

^  Mahon,  i.  194. 

27  Mahon,  i.  195. 

^  His  arrival  in  France  is  reported  on  April  29,  in  a  letter  in  the  '  Stuart  Papers ' : 
there  mnst  be  error  in  the  dates.  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  130.  Lancashire  Memorials, 
V.  215,  gives  May  4  as  the  date  of  the  escape. 

■-^  Lancashire  Memorials,  v.  221. 

•*"  Culloden  Papers,  p.  68, 

^1  Hill  Burton,  viii.  337;  cf.  Wallace's  Account  of  the  Rebellion,  1724; 
Rae,  p.  387. 

^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  49. 

^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  52. 

^■*  Duncan  Forbes  to  John  Forbes,  October  26,  17 16.  Culloden  Papers, 
pp.  67,  68. 

=*'  Stair  Annals,  i.  321-325. 

^  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  57-70. 

'■^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  89-157. 

38  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  107-115. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  218,  219. 

■"  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  343,  344. 

■"  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  284. 

•*2  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  245. 

**  Stair  Annals,  i.  391. 

•*^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  449. 

■'^  Saint-Simon,  xiii.  403. 

^  Saint-Simon,  xiii.  408. 

•*^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  386. 

'^  Stuart  Papers,  i.  481. 

«  Gualterio  MSS.,  Add.  MSS.,  pp.  20,  311,  f.  342. 

•■o  Gualterio  MSS.,  Add.  MSS.,  pp.  20,  311,  f.  344. 

^^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  51-55,  62,  76,  146. 

'2  Stuart  Papers,    ii.  67-70. 

'"'^  Tindal,  iv.  467  seqq.  :  1745. 

•'*  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  80,  106. 

'*'  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  269. 

*^  Mahon,  ii.  275-279. 

^7  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  464-466. 

**  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  459. 

•'"'"  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  470-472. 

*•  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  221-224. 

*i  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  187,  274. 

•'■^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  220. 

**■'  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  160.     Record  Office. 

^*  State  Papers,  F'oreign,  France,  vol.  161.     Record  Ofiice. 


255 


CHAPTER    XI. 

FOREIGN    AFFAIRS.       THE    STORY    OF    CLEMENTINA. 
I  716- I  719. 

The  history  of  Scotland,  at  this  period,  is  a  lost  thread  which  might 
be  sought,  perhaps,  in  the  study  of  freethinking  among  the  ministers 
and  the  sproutings  of  the  germs  of  dissent.  But  the  doubts  and 
lieresies  and  discontents  are  dealt  with  later.  We  are  here  obliged 
to  look  for  the  sequence  of  national  development  in  the  fortunes  of 
the  Jacobite  party,  whose  hope  was  to  make  Scotland  once  more 
Scotland,  an  independent  kingdom  under  a  Stuart  king.  The  pecu- 
liarity of  this  nationalist  endeavour  was,  that  while  a  majority  of  the 
people,  no  doubt,  would  have  voted  for  repeal  of  the  Union,  the 
majority  would  have  declared  against  a  Restoration.  If  the  return 
to  national  independence  could  only  be  made  by  way  of  the  recall 
of  a  Catholic  prince,  the  ministers  would  endure  the  Oath  of  Abjura- 
tion, which  they  could  refuse  with  safety ;  the  Cameronians  would 
merely  moan  over  a  broken  Covenant ;  and  the  populace  would  sub- 
mit to  what  they  regarded  as  English  arrogance  and  ill-faith,  rather 
than  face  again  the  perils  of  which  they  had  an  unforgotten  experi- 
ence. The  most  prejudiced  enemy  of  the  Jacobites  could  not  deny 
to  them  the  praise  which  the  tolerant  preacher  allotted  to  the  Accuser 
of  the  Brethren.  They  were  very  active  about  their  own  business. 
Within  less  than  a  year  of  the  king's  flight  from  Scotland,  the 
dispersal  of  the  clans,  the  execution  of  many  adherents,  and  the 
ruin  of  most,  the  Jacobites  were  able,  at  least,  to  give  England 
a  fright.  Their  songs  of  this  period  toast  "  the  Royal  Swede,"  who 
is  the  man  "to  do  the  deed."  Berwick  attributes  to  himself  the 
beginning  of  negotiations  with  Charles  XII.,  and  the  project  of  a 
sudden  landing,  like  a  bolt  from  a  blue  sky,  of  eight  thousand  honest 


256  GENEROUS  NATURE  OF  JAMES. 

Swedes,  sailing  from   Gothenburg.     Charles   was  charmed   by  the 
idea,  but  totally  unable  to  put  it  into  execution.^ 

During  1716  the  Stuart  Papers  show  Sir  John  Erskine,  who  lost 
the  gold  off  Dundee,  tpafficking  with  Sparre,  the  Swedish  ambassador 
to  France,  who,  again,  communicated  with  Gortz,  the  confidant  of 
Charles  XII.  General  Dillon  was  also  engaged  \Vith  Sparre  in  this 
intrigue  to  gain  for  Charles  an  ally  in  James,  who  was  to  be  re- 
stored to  the  English  throne.  Like  Bolingbroke,  Sparre  found  that 
whatever  Mary  of  Modena  knew  at  once  reached  Stair,  through 
spies  in  her  little  Court.^  James  could  not  bring  himself  to  treat 
his  mother  as  his  son.  Prince  Charles,  later  treated  himself,  and  to 
conceal  his  projects  from  her.  His  conduct  was  filial  and  amiable, 
but  of  perilous  consequences  to  his  fortunes. 

Meanwhile  Sir  John  Erskine,  who  was  to  deal  with  Sweden  and 
Russia,  if  he  lost  his  master's  gold,  found  his  own  silver — that  is,  a 
vein  of  silver  was  discovered  on  his  property  in  Scotland.  He  was 
likely  to  receive  a  pardon,  and  leave  to  go  home  to  attend  to  his 
silver  mine,  and  James,  being  informed,  sent  his  congratulations. 
"  His  own  affair  is  now  to  be  his  chief  concern,  and  he  [the  king] 
wishes  him  all  success,"  and  will  be  "  amongst  the  last  to  have  an 
unfavourable  opinion  of  him  "  for  abandoning  the  Swedish  intrigue 
and  accepting  a  pardon.  So  Mar  writes  to  Sir  John  (September  25, 
1716).^  Such  was  the  temper  of  "the  weak,  bigoted,  and  obstinate 
Pretender,"  to  use  the  phrase  which  is  stereotyped  in  our  histories. 
Not  to  be  outdone  in  generosity.  Sir  John,  whose  brother  was 
physician  to  the  Czar,  tried  the  pulse  of  the  autocrat :  would  he 
help  la  bonne  cause  ?  The  circumstances  are  peculiar,  and  illustrate 
the  energy  of  the  individual  Scot,  and  the  condition  of  these 
medical  and  surgical  studies  in  which  Scotsmen  have  ever  since 
been  eminently  distinguished.  Dr  Robert  Erskine  was  great  grand- 
son of  John,  seventh  Earl  of  Mar,  and  of  his  second  wife,  Lady 
Marie  Stewart,  daughter  of  Esme,  Duke  of  Lennox.  He  was,  there- 
fore, "  sib  to  the  king  " — indeed,  in  a  distant  way  to  both  kings,  de 
facto  and  de  Jure.  As  the  sixth  surviving  son  of  Sir  Charles  Erskine 
of  Alva,  he  had  to  make  his  own  way  in  the  world.  He  chose, 
like  the  famous  cadet  of  Bonhill,  Tobias  Smollett,  the  profession  of 
medicine. 

There  was  as  yet  no  medical  school  in  the  University  of 
Edinburgh,  so  he  became  apprentice  to  a  general  practitioner,  a 
surgeon  apothecary,    Hugh  Palerson,  himself  probably  of  the  Jac- 


DR   ERSKINE.  257 

obite  family  of  that  name,  represented  in  1745  l)y  Sir  Hugh 
Paterson  of  Bannockburn,  uncle  of  Clementina  Walkinshaw,  the 
mistress  of  Prince  Charles.  The  prentice,  by  his  indentures,  was 
bound  not  only  to  chastity,  but  "  not  to  play  any  games  whatso- 
ever." The  high-born  prentice,  after  tending  his  master's  gallipots, 
pursued  his  studies  in  Paris  (1697),  and,  in  1703,  returned  to 
England:  he  became  F.R.S,  In  London  there  were  then  several 
eminent  Scottish  physicians,  such  as  Arbuthnot,  and  George  Cheyne 
of  the  ancient  Norman-Scot  house  of  Cheyne  in  Aberdeenshire. 
In  1704,  doubtless  under  powerful  protection,  he  went  to  Russia, 
then  ruled  by  Peter  the  Great,  and  was  almost  at  once  taken  into  the 
service  of  the  Czar  as  physician  and  as  Archiairos,  the  Greek  title 
given  by  Nero  to  his  physician-in-chief,  but  by  Peter  to  the  head  of 
his  medical  Chancellery.  In  the  year  at  which  we  have  arrived, 
1 7 16,  Dr  Erskine  was  accompanying  the  Czar  on  a  European  tour, 
being  now  a  counsellor  of  State,  a  post  which  gave  him  hereditary 
noblesse ;  but  that  he  already  had  by  birth,  according  to  the  Con- 
tinental view  of  noblesse.  In  July  the  Czar  and  Dr  Erskine  reached 
Copenhagen,  where  the  doctor  was  within  reasonable  distance  of 
his  brother,  Sir  John,  the  agent  of  James. 

It  was  before  the  Rising  that  Sir  John  discovered  and  made 
profit  of  his  silver  mines  near  Alva,  and  the  British  Government, 
hearing  of  it  after  the  Rising,  was  ready  to  pardon  him  if  he  would 
point  out  its  site  (surely  not  a  difficult  thing  to  discover),  as  a 
tenth  of  the  ore  would  come  to  the  Crown  by  a  Scots  Act  of  1592. 
At  Copenhagen  the  doctor  met  Sir  Henry  Stirling,  who  was  look- 
ing for  Sir  John  Erskine  and  also  acting  as  a  Jacobite  agent ;  and 
on  September  2  2  Sir  Henry  wrote  to  Sir  John  Erskine  from  Copen- 
hagen, saying  that  the  Czar  and  the  doctor  "heartily  wished  George 
at  the  devil,"  but  were  too  remote  to  be  of  any  help  in  sending 
him  thither.* 

Meanwhile  Sparre  asked  Dillon  for  a  memoir  as  to  what  help 
James  expected  from  England,  to  be  shown  to  Charles  XII.  by 
Gortz.  He  hoped  that  Charles  would  be  able  to  act  in  the 
beginning  of  December  (September  6) ;  but  Sparre  made  these 
promises  without  the  orders  of  Charles,  as  he  explained.  Father 
Innes  and  Middleton  drew  up  the  desired  memoir  containing  the 
usual  promises  of  the  English  Jacobites,  if  they  were  backed  by 
honest  foreign  invaders.  What  Charles  needed  most  was  money : 
what  would  the  English  advance  in  coin  ?  ^     The  English  Jacobites 

VOL.  IV.  R 


258  JAMES   AND   SWEDEN   (17 17). 

happened  at  this  time  to  be  in  a  fright,  caused  by  some  underling 
Jacobite  agent's  doings.  At  this  point  of  the  negotiations  with 
Sweden  the  pubUshed  volumes  of  the  Stuart  Papers  cease,  and 
information  is  no  longer  so  full  and  authentic. 

As  early  as  November  7,  17 16,  Stair,  from  Paris,  reported  "the 
talk  of  the  Pretender's  treaty  with  Sweden,"  ^  but  his  despatches  are 
not  important  as  regards  this  matter.  But  on  February  20,  17 17, 
King  George,  in  his  speech  to  the  House  of  Commons,  announced 
that  supplies  would  be  needed  for  the  defence  of  the  kingdom, 
owing  to  "  the  preparations  which  are  making  from  abroad  to 
invade  us."  Stanhope  then  announced  that  letters  of  Gyllenborg, 
Swedish  Ambassador  in  London,  Gortz,  and  Sparre  would  be  laid 
before  the  House  in  proof  of  the  conspiracy.  In  October  and 
November  the  Government  had  intercepted  and  read  letters  of 
Gyllenborg  and  Gortz,  at  the  end  of  January  had  arrested  Gyllen- 
borg,— General  Wade,  later  the  maker  of  the  military  roads  of 
Scotland,  was  the  officer  who  acted, — while  Gortz  was  seized  by 
the  States  of  Holland,  and  Charles  XH.,  in  reprisals,  arrested 
Jackson,  British  Resident  in  Sweden.  The  Regent  finally  pacified 
Sweden  and  England,  Charles  disclaiming  the  conspiracy  of  his 
Ministers.'^  From  The  Hague  Peter  proclaimed  his  own  innocence, 
and  added  Dr  Erskine's  oath  that  he  had  never  written  to  Mar,  or 
any  other  person,  with  regard  to  the  plot.^  The  letters  of  Gortz 
and  Gyllenborg  mention  the  doctor  as  a  cousin  of  Mar  and  a  hope- 
ful instrument,  but  do  not  precisely  implicate  him.^  But  a  letter 
from  Sir  Henry  Stirling  (September  22,  17 16)  to  Sir  John  Erskine 
represents  that  the  doctor  has  induced  the  Czar  "  to  get  your  affair 
done,  if  t'other  way  should  fail."  ^^ 

The  intercepted  letters  show  that  the  Jacobites  had  promised 
;^6o,ooo  towards  the  Swedish  invasion,  which,  as  an  invasion  by 
Protestants,  they  would  reckon  peculiarly  "  honest."  Gyllenborg, 
(November  17,  17 16)  declares  that  Dr  Erskine  has  written  to  Mar 
saying  that  the  Czar  is  very  friendly,  but  cannot  make  the  first  step.^^ 
As  to  the  English  Jacobites,  Gyllenborg  (December  4,  17 16)  found 
thai  they  had  been  deluded  by  the  too  hopeful  exiles  at  Avignon, 
who  believed  and  asserted  that  Sweden  was  actually  committed  to 
the  design.  "  For  you,"  said  an  English  Jacobite  to  Gyllenborg, 
"  to  flatter  yourself  that,  out  of  respect  or  friendship,  we  should  part 
with  our  money  to  any  one  whatsoever,  would  be  to  know  nothing 
of  us."     Only  fixed  assurances  from  Sweden,  not  requests  for  money 


MAR,   LOCKHART,   AND   ARGYLL.  259 

on  vague  assurances,  would  loosen  the  Jacobite  purse-strings.  The 
English  Houses  were  stirred  by  the  rather  unusual  correspondence 
of  the  Swedish  Minister,  and  an  unnamed  member  moved  that  war 
should  be  declared  against  Sweden.  Stanhope  replied  that  "  it  was 
time  enough  to  do  that  if  the  King  of  Sweden  refused  to  disown  the 
practices  of  his  Ministers,"  Meanwhile  Walpole,  on  private  grudges, 
made  friends  with  Sir  William  Windham,  "  downright  Shippen,"  and 
other  Jacobites,  and  managed  the  escape  of  Oxford  from  his  trial 
for  treason,  while  Oxford  continued  to  be  in  communication  with 
Atterbury,  the  chief  Jacobite  agent.  Here  was  food  for  the  eternal 
hopes  of  the  exiles. 

Throughout  these  negotiations  Lockharthad  been  in  hopes  of 
gaining  the  "disgraced"  Argyll  to  the  Cause.  Mar  had  suggested 
this  plan  to  Lockhart ;  but  Mar,  before  the  Rising,  had  opposed  the 
Duke's  interests  in  Scotland,  and  neither  Lockhart  nor  Colonel 
Middleton,  his  confidant,  believed  that  Mar  was  sincere  at  present. 
So  he  sent  to  Mar  a  sealed  letter  for  James,  saying  that  James  alone 
was  to  see  the  epistle.  Meanwhile  he  heard  that  James,  from 
Perth,  early  in  17 16,  had  written  a  threatening  letter  to  Argyll,  a 
letter  which  must  infuriate  Red  John  of  the  Battles,  but  that  the 
bearer  had  not  delivered  it.  It  was  thought  that  Mar  had  inspired 
this  letter  to  serve  his  own  ambition  ;  but  there  is  no  draft  of  it  in 
the  Stuart  Papers,  while  James's  letter  from  Montrose  to  the  Duke 
is  most  courteous.  A  Captain  Dugald  Campbell  was  Lockhart's 
authority,  and  declared  that  he  had  seen  the  menacing  letter  from 
the  king.^-  Colonel  Middleton  now  sounded  Argyll,  and  believed 
that  he  would  come  over  to  James ;  but  Lockhart's  private  letter  to 
the  king  on  the  matter  of  gaining  Arygll  remained  unanswered  for 
many  months.  The  dateless  Lockhart  implies  that  it  was  written 
during  the  negotiations  with  Sweden,  but  no  letter  of  his  is  in  the 
Stuart  Papers  up  to  September  30,  1716.  Finally  Mar,  in  a  note 
to  Straiton,  said  that  the  king  had  read  Lockhart's  letter  as  to 
Argyll,  but  "  not  approving  what  I  [Lockhart]  proposed,  would  enter 
into  no  measures  with  that  person  [Argyll]."  Now  Lockhart  had 
begged  James  to  keep  the  secret  from  Mar,  so  he  concluded  that 
Mar  had  opened  his  letter  to  the  king,  concealed  it,  and  returned 
his  own  reply  as  if  from  James.  Two  or  three  years  later,  from 
Rome  (1720),  Lockhart's  son  wrote  to  him,  saying  that  he  had 
given  a  copy  of  a  fresh  letter  of  his  father's  concerning  the  affair 
of  Argyll  to  the  king,  who,  after  reading  it,  "  told  me  he  had  never 


26o  DEATH   OF   MARY   OF   MODENA   (17 1 7). 

heard  of  these  matters  before, — so  it  seems  all  the  letters  on  these 
subjects  have  either  been  suppressed  or  miscarried.  The  king  was 
beforehand  with  me  as  to  Argyll's  capacity  and  usefulness,  .  .  ." 
Now  Lockhart's  letter  had  not  miscarried,  and  the  inference  is 
obvious.  But  James,  writing  to  Lockhart,  expresses  his  joy 
(February  15,  1720)  that  a  good  opinion  is  still  entertained  of 
Mar,  who  to  Lockhart  seemed  long  to  have  ceased  to  deserve,  if 
he  ever  had  deserved  it.^^ 

Lockhart,  in  1720,  made  no  attempt  on  Argyll,  partly  because 
he  believed  that  Hay,  who  was  now  serving  James  in  Rome,  knew 
all  about  the  idea.  Argyll  was  presently  reconciled  to  George  L, 
and  made  High  Chamberlain  of  the  Household.  But  we  are 
anticipating  events.  As  one  door  shuts  another  door  opens. 
The  Jacobites  did  not  despair  of  assistance  from  Sweden  while 
Charles  XH.  lived.  They  industriously  sought  a  wife  for  James 
(who  had  already  been  in  treaty  for  a  princess  of  the  House  of 
Modena,  and  would  not  have  been  alarmed  by  the  Protestantism 
of  a  lady  of  the  House  of  Hesse).  In  autumn  17 17  Ormonde, 
with  Sir  Henry  Stirling,  Charles  Wogan,  and  others,  went  to  Sweden 
and  Russia,  to  seek  a  bride  for  James  in  the  family  of  the  Czar 
and  to  reconcile  Peter  with  Charles  XH.  He  was  not  received  at 
either  Court,  but  Stair  reported  activity  among  the  Jacobites  in  Paris 
(November  I'ji'j)^  This  activity  and  Jacobite  "uppishness"  Stair 
continued  to  report  throughout  the  spring  of  17 18,  while  he  moved 
the  Regent  to  banish  the  exiles.  Mary  of  Modena  closed  her  life 
of  sorrows  on  May  7,  1718, — the  latest  grief  had  been  her  son's 
withdrawal  of  confidence  from  the  Court  of  Saint  Germain,  and  from 
Father  Innes  of  the  Scots  College.  James,  at  Urbino,  was  induced 
to  act  against — what  had  constantly  been  represented  to  him  by 
Berwick  and  Bolingbroke — the  untrustworthy  faith  or  lax  garrulity 
of  people  about  his  mother, — women,  priests,  and  traitors  bought 
by  Stair.  The  Catholic  Jacobites,  as  James  wrote  to  the  queen's 
confessor,  "  would  force  me  to  the  same  measures  which  were  the 
source  of  my  father's  misfortunes.  ...  I  am  a  Catholic,  but  I 
am  a  king ;  and  subjects,  of  whatsoever  religion  they  may  be,  have 
an  equal  right  to  be  protected.  I  am  a  king,  but,  as  the  Pope 
himself  told  me,  I  am  not  an  apostle."  His  affairs  were  henceforth 
to  be  managed.  Stair  wrote,  by  Mar  and  his  advisers  in  England 
(May  4,   1 7 18). 

Meanwhile   the   spy,    Higgons,   was   still   purloining    the    private. 


WOGAN    AND   CLEMENTINA   (1718).  26I 

papers  of  the  dying  queen.^^  Before  dying  the  queen  bade  her 
confessor  tell  James  that  her  affection  was  not  impaired  by  his 
recent  withdrawal  of  confidence.  He  had  been  only  too  devoted  a 
son  to  the  best  of  mothers  but  not  the  most  discreet  of  women. 
Among  all  the  spies  of  the  age,  perhaps  none  equalled  in  infamy 
the  miscreant  Higgons,  who  ate  her  bread  and  betrayed  her,  even 
as  she  lay  dying,  to  the  Earl  of  Stair. 

Though  Ormonde  failed  to  find  a  bride  for  James,  Charles 
Wogan  succeeded, — to  her  sorrow,  as  it  fell  out,  and  perhaps  to 
his  own.  He  went  to  woo  for  another,  like  Lancelot  for  Arthur, 
and  (perhaps  as  James  certainly,  when  all  was  over,  guessed) 
Wogan  made,  with  no  disloyal  thought,  an  impression  on  the 
bride.^*^  Wogan,  hunting  through  the  Courts  of  Europe,  saw  the 
three  daughters  of  James  Sobieski,  "  Prince  Royal  of  Poland,"  a 
descendant  of  the  great  Sobieski  who  crushed  the  Turks  before 
Vienna.  The  eldest  daughter  was  "  bristling  with  etiquette,  and 
astonishingly  solemn,"  so  her  he  ought  to  have  chosen.  The 
second  was  "  beyond  measure  gay,  free,  and  familiar."  She  became 
Duchesse  de  Bouillon.  The  third,  Maria  Clementina,  was  "  sweet, 
amiable,  of  an  even  temper,  gay  only  in  season."  Her  did  Wogan 
choose,  though,  unhappily,  her  devoutness  was  too  narrow  for  the 
wife  of  one  who  "  was  not  an  apostle  "  :  her  gaiety  did  not  survive 
the  tedium  of  a  marriage  with  a  man  eternally  absorbed  in  his  sad 
futile  business,  and  her  even  temper  was  soured  by  jealousies  which 
appear,  as  far  as  her  husband's  heart  was  concerned,  to  have  been 
as  baseless  as  they  were  bitter.^''  On  October  18,  17 18,  Davenant 
■wrote  from  Genoa  to  Stair  that  the  bride  was  expected  at  Venice 
on  her  way  to  Rome.^^ 

But  Mar  had  insisted  on  not  sending  Wogan  back  to  Ohlau,  in 
Silesia,  to  bring  the  princess.  He  despatched  James  Murray,  an 
old  and  trusted  agent,  later  Jacobite  Lord  Dunbar,  and  much  hated 
by  the  party.  Murray  managed,  Wogan  says,  to  let  out  the  secret. 
However,  he  brought  the  marriage  contract,  signed,  to  Urbino  on 
August  3,  1 718.  John  Hay  (later  the  detested  Jacobite  Earl  of 
Inverness)  was  despatched  to  meet  Clementina  and  her  mother, 
and  conduct  them  to  Ferrara  for  the  marriage  ceremony.  The 
secret,  of  course,  leaked  out,  and  was  known  to  Stair  in  August, 
and,  compelled  by  English  influence,  the  emperor  stopped  the 
bride  and  her  mother,  his  own  aunt  and  cousin,  at  Innspruck.  The 
king  went  hastily  from  Urbino  to  Rome,  having  heard  that   the 


262  SPAIN   AND   THE   CAUSE. 

emperor  was  to  press  the  Pope  to  banish  him.  Wogan,  seeing  his 
plan  imperilled,  followed,  and  the  king,  apologising  for  having 
taken  the  affair  out  of  his  hands,  bade  him  rescue  the  bride  as 
best  he  might,  and  gave  him  a  letter  to  her  father,  Prince  James 
Sobieski.  Wogan,  seeing  that  if  he  failed  he  had  no  prospect  but 
that  of  an  Austrian  or  English  scaffold,  set  forth  with  glee  on  an 
adventure  so  much  to  his  taste  in  November.  His  fortunes  shall 
be  narrated  later.  ^^ 

Meanwhile,  in  the  summer  of  1718,  Stair  was  moving  the  Regent 
to  drive  out  "  the  rebels "  from  Paris.  The  Regent  promised  in 
August,  but  the  Regent's  promises  were  ill  kept,  though  he  was 
ready  to  betray  Jacobite  secrets.  From  Spain  and  Cardinal  Alberoni 
had  shone  a  great  light  of  hope  upon  the  exiles. 

In  1717  there  was  war  between  the  emperor  and  Spain. 
England,  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  was  a  guarantor  of  Italian 
neutrality,  and  had  a  defensive  alliance  with  the  emperor.  Car- 
dinal Alberoni,  the  extraordinary  adventurer  (who  had  not  as  yet 
the  hat),  was  then  all-powerful  at  Madrid,  and  had  been  friendly 
with  England,  but  as  she  now  stood  in  his  way  as  regarded  the 
quarrel  with  the  emperor,  he  suspended  his  own  commercial  treaty 
with  Britain.  An  imperial  insult  and  injury  to  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador at  Rome — he  was  arrested  at  Milan,  and  his  papers  were 
seized  and  sent  to  Vienna — irritated  the  Spanish  monarch  to  the 
pitch  of  declaring  war  against  the  emperor.  Alberoni,  though 
threatened  by  domestic  opposition,  prepared  a  sea  force  at  Bar- 
celona :  its  purpose  was  a  secret,  but  Cagliari  in  Sardinia,  then 
in  possession  of  the  Empire,  proved  to  be  its  objective.  British 
diplomacy  intervened  after  Sardinia  was  overrun ;  but  Alberoni 
continued  his  preparations,  and  efforts  were  made  to  reconcile 
Charles  XII.  and  Peter  the  Great — that  old  dream  of  the  Jacobites. 
England,  on  June  4,  17 18,  sent  a  fleet  under  Sir  George  Byng  to 
the  Mediterranean,  where  he  learned  that  the  Spaniards  were  over- 
running Sicily.  He  attempted  to  negotiate  an  armistice  with  their 
commander,  who  had  no  powers  to  treat,  and  on  August  i  r,  off 
Cape  Passaro,  he  captured  or  sunk  most  of  the  Spanish  fleet.  On 
this  occasion  Captain  Walton  wrote  a  despatch  famous  for  its 
extreme  unlikcness  to  the  bulletins  of  Napoleon, — 

"Sir, — We  have  taken  and  destroyed  all  the  Spanish  ships 
which  were  upon  the  coast :  the  number  as  per  margin." 


DEATH   OF   CHARLES   XH.  263 

There  had  been  no  declaration  of  war,  but  Alberoni  had  received 
due  official  warning.  He  recalled  Monteleone,  the  Spanish  Am- 
bassador, a  friend  of  the  Jacobites,  from  London,  and  seized  British 
vessels  in  Spanish  ports.  Negotiations  were  opened  between 
Charles  XII.  and  Peter  the  Great,  and  Ormonde's  passport  to  the 
conference,  as  Plenipotentiary  of  James  III.,  signed  by  Peter  the 
Great,  is  among  the  Stuart  Papers.^*^  Can  it  be  wondered  that 
Stair  found  the  Jacobites  "  uppish  "  ?  Charles  XII.  and  Peter  the 
Great,  even  when  at  war  with  each  other,  were  united  in  "  wishing 
the  Elector  at  the  devil."  Now  they,  with  Spain,  would  impart  to 
George  an  impetus  in  that  direction.  But  the  persistent  Fate  which 
dogged  the  Stuart  cause  again  had  her  stroke  in  the  battle,  and 
winged  the  musket-ball  which  slew  Charles  XII.  before  Fredrikshall 
on  December  1 1.  With  him  collapsed  his  policy,  if  policy  it  can  be 
called.  At  Paris,  Stair  kept  supplying  King  George's  Minister, 
Craggs,  with  the  fullest  information.-^ 

Presently  the  romantic  Cellamare  plot  to  raise  France,  under  the 
Due  de  Maine,  against  the  Regent  was  discovered  and  failed :  the 
Regent  declared  war  against  Spain,  and  England  went  before  him 
in  the  declaration  (December  28,  17 18).  Alberoni  retaliated  by 
preparing,  at  Cadiz,  an  expedition  to  attack  England,  under  the 
forlorn  leadership  of  the  often  baffled  Ormonde.  He,  for  his  part, 
had  left  for  Spain,  as  Stair  knew,  in  the  first  week  of  November, 
burning  with  just  wrath  against  the  seizure  of  Clementina  Sobieski 
at  Innspruck  by  the  emperor, — "  It  is  sure  the  most  barbarous 
action  that  has  been  done  for  many  ages  "  (Paris,  November  4)^ 
Stair  had  taken  measures  to  arrest  Ormonde,  but  he  crossed  the 
Pyrenees  disguised  as  a  valet,  and  Alberoni,  war  not  having  yet 
been  declared,  denied  all  connection  with  him.  As  Mr  Froude  says 
of  similar  falsehoods  on  the  part  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  Alberoni  "was 
without  the  minor  scruples  which  embarrass  timid  consciences." 

On  December  17,  when  Charles  XII.  had  been  dead  for  a  week, 
Ormonde,  knowing  nothing  of  that  blow,  wrote  to  James  to  say 
that  Alberoni  had  sent  Sir  Patrick  Lawless  to  arrange  an  alliance 
between  Russia  and  Sweden.  Spain  would  give  James  5000  men 
(of  which  1000  would  be  cavalry),  1000  barrels  of  powder,  and 
15,000  muskets.  Ormonde  asked  for  arms  to  supply  a  Scottish 
rising,  and  wrote  to  summon  the  Earl  Marischal  and  Campbell  of 
Ormidale,  a  Jacobite  prisoner  of  1 7 1 5,  who  had  escaped.  Ormonde 
thought  that  James  should  come   to   Spain :    Rome    was   full    of 


264  THE   REGENT'S   DISCOVERIES  (17 19). 

English  spies.^3  It  was  not  till  January  25  that  Ormonde,  at 
Valladolid,  heard  of  the  death  of  Charles  XII.,  who,  as  Gortz's 
papers  show,  had  definitely  promised  Alberoni  to  invade  England 
as  soon  as  he  had  taken  Fredrikshall.  The  "unknown  hand" 
that  sent  the  fatal  bullet  altered  the  whole  course  of  history.  As 
for  Gortz,  he  was  decapitated  at  Stockholm  on  March  3,  17 19. 
The  Cause  was  as  fatal  to  its  friends  as  Queen  Mary  to  her  lovers. 
Stair,  in  Paris,  knew  most  of  the  Jacobite  plans  from  the  Regent 
and  the  Abbe  du  Bois,  who  gave  him  the  Jacobite  cyphers,  so 
that  their  despatches,  when  intercepted  or  sold  to  him.  were  easy 
reading.  But  the  Regent's  information,  as  the  following  abstract 
shows,  was  not  always  quite  correct : — 

'■^  Ld.  Stair  to  Sec.  Craggs. 

"Paris,  January  21,  1719. 

"He  has  been  told  by  the  Regent  &  Abbe  du  Bois  the  full 
particulars  of  the  agreement  of  Kings  of  Spain  and  Sweden  as  to 
expedition  against  England.  The  K.  of  Sweden,  after  taking 
Drontheim,  to  proceed  to  Scotland  &  declare  himself  for  the 
Pretender  &  Protector  of  Protestant  Religion  :  the  transports  not 
to  be  raen-o'-war  but  barks  found  at  Drontheim  &  on  the  Nor- 
wegian coasts ;  K.  of  Spain  to  provide  certain  sumes.  Sir  Peter 
Lawless,  starting  from  Bilbao  with  some  of  the  remittances,  was 
shipwrecked  off  Heylegeland.  20,000  arms  being  made  in  Hol- 
land are  intended  for  the  expedition ;  Spain  to  furnish  6000  men, 
to  be  sent  to  Ireland  under  Ormond ;  the  Pretender  to  follow. 
Ormond  has  embarked  at  St  Sebastien,  to  pass  incog?tito  to  Ireland, 
apparently  to  wait  for  the  troops  there.  The  Duke  of  Orleans 
thinks  that  the  Czar  has  no  share  in  the  design. 

"  (Enclosing  the  cypher  used  by  the  Jacobites  corresponding 
with  Ormond,  wh.   Du  Bois  has  given  him.)" 

At  Rome,  on  January  26,  17 19,  James  received  Ormonde's 
letter  of  December  1 7,  and  Alberoni's  invitation  to  Spain.  Had 
Alberoni  known  of  Charles's  death,  the  invitation  would  never  have 
been  sent.  Mar  knew,  at  Rome,  by  January  30,  as  he  wrote  to 
Dillon  ;  but  James  was  going  to  accept  an  invitation  which  Alberoni 
had  no  time  to  withdraw,  so  sluggish  were  communications.-'* 

On  February  8  a  person,  believed  to  be  the  king,  left  Rome  with 
Mar  and  Perth,  going  northwards.     It  was  supposed  that  James  had 


THE   KING   GOES   TO   SPAIN    (17 19).  265 

been  summoned  to  the  office  of  Regent  of  Sweden,  or  to  pacify  the 
emperor  and  the  King  of  Spain,  or  had  been  called  to  England 
and  to  his  crown  on  the  rumoured  death  of  George  I.  The  pseudo- 
king  and  his  party  were  arrested  at  Voghera,  in  the  emperor's 
territory,  and  carried  in  triumph  to  the  Castle  of  Milan,  Stair 
sent  the  report  that  "  the  Pretender  is  taken  "  to  his  Government 
on  March  4,  but  he  seems  to  have  had  his  doubts.^^ 

He  had  learned,  through  the  emperor,  that  James  went  north 
from  Rome  on  February  8,  after  writing  to  ask  the  Pope  for  his 
blessing.  But  the  Regent's  news,  more  accurate,  was  to  the  effect 
that  James  was  tn  route  for  Barcelona.-*^  The  pseudo-king,  im- 
prisoned at  Milan,  was  one  of  the  Jacobite  family  of  Paterson 
(Sir  Hugh?),  who  had  played  the  royal  part  to  conceal  James's 
real  movements.  But  from  Mar's  long  letter  on  the  adventure 
to  Panmure,  it  does  not  seem  that  Paterson  was  really  mistaken 
for  James :   the  party  was  arrested  at  a  venture. 27 

The  real  James  went  south  from  Rome, — not  north, — and  was 
welcomed  at  Nettuno  by  a  French  vessel  under  Genoese  colours, 
sent  by  Cammock,  a  skipper  employed  during  17 15,  and.now — an 
admiral  of  Spain.'-'^  On  February  10  Ormonde  went  to  Corunna 
to  make  preparations.  James,  who  now  well  deserved  the  title 
of  "Jamie  the  Rover"  given  him  in  the  old  song,  suffered  many 
things  before  he  reached  Rosas,  in  Catalonia,  about  March  10. 
He  had  a  most  tempestuous  voyage,  was  very  ill  from  fever,  and 
lurked  three  days  in  Marseilles  and  a  day  at  Villa  Franca.  He 
stayed  also — to  avoid  two  English  cruisers — at  Hyeres,  in  a  deplor- 
able pot-house,  on  the  day  of  carnival.  There  was  a  crowd  of  merry- 
makers, and  his  Majesty,  an  elegant  and  melancholy  figure,  had 
to  dance  all  night,  though  he  felt  far  from  well,  with  the  landlady. 
Alberoni  wrote  these  details  to  Ormonde  on  March  i8.-'-^  Mean- 
while James,  characteristically,  was  most  concerned  in  Madrid  "  not 
to  neglect  what  lies  in  my  power  for  the  support  of  so  many  brave 
subjects  and  old  servants  "  at  Saint  Germain. 2** 

The  Earl  Marischal  and  his  brother  James,  the  future  Prussian 
field  -  marshal,  had  answered  Ormonde's  summons,  and  gone  by 
Marseilles  to  Catalonia.  In  February  Alberoni  gave  the  Earl  two 
frigates,  2000  muskets,  money,  and  ammunition,  with  a  few 
Spanish  soldiers.  With  these,  on  March  8,  he  sailed  for  Scotland, 
carrying  letters  from  Ormonde  to  Glengarry,  the  Duke  of  Gordon, 
and   others.      Nobody   in   Scotland  knew  anything  definite,  as  we 


266  THE   NEW  ARMADA   (17 19). 

learn  from   Lockhart,  about   the  adventure,  but   Marischal's  party 
alone  reached  British  shores. 

At  this  moment,  and  indeed  for  weeks,  a  singular  rumour  ran 
through  Europe  that  the  Princess  Clementina  had  escaped  from 
Innspruck.  On  March  8  Stair  wrote  to  Craggs  :  "  Princess  Sobiesky 
is  expected  at  Verona  on  the  13th,  but  her  escape  has  not  yet 
been  reported."  ^^  On  March  11  Stair  still  had  no  news  of  her 
escape.  Two  Strasburg  news-letters  of  April  5  reported  that, 
on  March  30,  Wogan  had  rescued  the  princess.  Now  Wogan,  at 
that  very  moment,  was  about  to  start  for  Strasburg,  on  his  way 
to  achieve  his  adventure.  To  his  romantic  proceedings  we  shall 
return :  it  was  never  known  how  the  prophetic  rumour  arose. 
Stair  remained  in  perplexity  about  James's  movements  :  now  he 
heard  corroboration  of  his  capture  and  imprisonment  at  Milan, 
now  news  came  of  him  at  Ravenna.  The  Spanish  fleet  at  Cadiz 
was  believed  to  be  intended  for  the  west  of  England ;  and  Stair 
had  news  of  Oxford's  traffickings  with  the  Jacobites.  The  Highland 
chiefs  in  Languedoc  and  Guienne  were  to  go  to  raise  the  western 
isles,  as  Skye  and  Lewis.  "The  project,"  wrote  Stair  with  truth, 
"is  ridiculous  and  improbable"  (March  11).  Stair  received,  and 
disbelieved  in,  exaggerated  reports  of  the  Spanish  strength,  but 
heard  from  the  Regent  about  the  real  strength  and  movements  of 
Ormonde  (really  of  Marischal).  The  Regent's  informant  was  James's 
brother,  the  Duke  of  Berwick,  who,  perhaps,  might  have  been  more 
honourably  employed  than  in  acting  as  an  agent  for  intelligence  to 
his  brother's  enemies. ^^ 

The  Spanish  fleet,  in  fact,  after  long  delays,  left  Cadiz  on 
March  7, — five  ships  of  war,  and  twenty-two  transports  with  5000 
troops,  many  of  them  hastily  recruited,  and,  as  Stair  heard,  very 
unserviceable.  The  fleet  carried  arms  for  30,000  men,  and 
Ormonde  had  a  proclamation  with  him  in  which  the  King  of 
Spain  promised  that  all  British  officers  who  deserted  George  for 
James  would,  in  case  of  failure,  retain  their  rank  in  his  own 
service.  No  British  officer,  however  inclined  to  Jacobitism, 
would  have  been  "  false  to  his  salt."  Lockhart,  though  vehement 
enough,  expresses,  on  another  occasion,  his  contempt  for  such 
behaviour  in  the  field,  though,  in  peace,  he  appears  to  have 
thought  that  Argyll  had  a  perfect  right  to  change  sides.^^  Mean- 
time Ormonde,  at  Corunna,  knew  that  the  attack  on  England 
would  not  be  a  surprise.     In  a  month  of  delay  (February   10  to 


EXPEDITION    TO   SCOTLAND   (1719)-  267 

March  7)  all  had  been  discovered.  The  British  fleet  would  treat 
the  Spanish  "as  per  margin,"  in  Captain  Walton's  commercial 
phrase,  and,  even  if  the  Spaniards  did  slip  past  the  fleets,  the 
British  Government  had  time  to  lay  hands  on  the  English  Jacob- 
ites, and  prepare  for  the  5000  Spaniards  an  iron  welcome. 

Delays  continued,  and  on  March   22  Ormonde  advised  Alberoni 
that  the  English  project  was  hopeless,  and  that  the  expedition  should 
be  directed  to  the  West  Highlands.     In  this  case  a  large  supply  of 
provisions  would  be  necessary  :  it  is  not  possible  for  an  army  to 
"live  on  the  country"   in  Moidart   or   Lochaber.     Ormonde  also 
said  that  James,  if  they  sailed  round   Ireland  for  the   Hebrides, 
should   come   in   person.      To   James,  Ormonde  wrote   (Corunna, 
March  22)  that  Marischal  had  sailed  eleven  days  before.     "What 
was  good  a  month  ago  [the  attempt  on  England]  is  not  so  now." 
To  James,  Ormonde  said  nothing  definite  about  the  need  of  his 
presence,   but  hinted  at  it  delicately.      As   his  utmost  hope,   he 
confessed,  was  to  hold  his  ground  in  the  Highlands,  on  the  chance 
"  of  some  occasion  that  may  be  advantageous,"  the  proposal  to  come 
and  loiter  with  an  army,  unprovisioned,  in  the  picturesque  scenery 
of  Moidart  and  the  isles,  did  not  tempt  the  king.    Thus,  at  Corunna 
on  April  5  Ormonde  acquiesced  in  James's  objection  to  the  Scottish 
adventure.     Alberoni  had  heard  from  London  that  all  was  in  dis- 
order, and  that  Government,  in  perplexity,  asked  aid  from  France, 
— which,  indeed,  was  offered  by  the  Regent,  as  we  learn  from  Stair, 
who  had  no  desire  to  see  honest  Frenchmen  landed  in  England  to 
protect   the   Hanoverian   dynasty.       "The  bias   of  all  this   nation 
towards  the  Pretender  is  inconceivable.    .    .    .    Our  Jacobites  are 
much  better  disposed  to  drink  the  Pretender's  health  than  to  fight 
for  him  "  (March  20).     Alberoni  acquiesced  in  an  invasion  of  Scot- 
land if  England  proved  too  strong,  for  the  King  of  Spain  believed 
that  Scotland  was  about  to  rise,  and  must  not  be  deserted.     He 
knew,   at  least,   that  many    Jacobites   had   left   the   Continent   for 
Scotland,  and  his  Catholic   Majesty  "will  not  sacrifice  so   many 
honest  men  who  have  taken  up  arms  already."     In  fact,  the  Scots 
were  determined,  as  Lockhart  says,  not  to  move  till  England  was 
engaged,    though    they  were    nearly    hurried    into   action   by   false 
news,  brought  by  a  man  who  said  that  Ormonde  had  landed  him 
in  Galloway  to  bid  them  rise.     Alberoni,  meanwhile,  pointed  out 
to  Ormonde  the  wildness  of  his  proposal  to  risk   James  and  the 
Cause  by  taking  him  on  an  expedition  with  no  particular  objective. 


268  THE   ARMADA   RUINED   (17 1 9). 

The  English  Government  took  the  usual  precautions,  both  as 
regarded  the  fleet  and  by  bringing  over  Swiss  and  Dutch  troops  to 
keep  England  English  ! 

The  Spaniards  had  followed  the  usual  course.  Their  fleet  was 
scattered  in  the  accustomed  way  by  a  storm  of  March  29.  The 
ships  were  crippled,  the  guns  were  thrown  overboard  with  the  stores, 
and  the  news  of  the  return  of  the  ruined  Armada  was  sent  by  James 
to  Alberoni  on  his  arrival  at  Corunna  on  April  17.  The  king's  one 
idea  was  now  to  succour  the  Earl  Marischal,  who  had  already  set 
out  for  Scotland  with  his  two  frigates  and  a  small  detachment  of 
Spanish  soldiers.^*  The  storm  probably  saved  the  5000  Spaniards 
from  being  sunk  or  captured.  The  whole  campaign  had  been 
shattered  by  the  musket-shot  from  Fredrikshall  in  December  17 18. 
To  the  Jacobites  in  Paris,  says  Stair,  the  failure  was  an  excuse  for 
drinking  a  good  many  bottles  of  wine.  It  affected  Mar  otherwise. 
On  May  2  7  Stair  asks  Craggs  what  is  to  be  done  about  Mar  ?  He 
has  been  arrested  at  Geneva,  and  *'  pretends  he  wishes  to  quit  the 
Pretender's  party."  ^^ 

This  is  really  visible  in  Mar's  behaviour.  He  wrote  to 
Stair  from  Geneva  (May  6,  22),  and  a  third  anonymous  letter-; 
he  also  wrote  to  his  father-in-law,  the  Duke  of  Kingston.  Stair, 
thinking  that  Mar  would  desert  James  if  George  would  restore  his 
honours  and  estate,  advised  that  he  should  be  received :  his  deser- 
tion would  prove  that  only  Papists  could  serve  the  Pretender,  who, 
for  his  part,  retained,  through  good  and  evil  report,  his  belief  in 
Mar's  loyalty  to  himself  Mar's  own  letters  express  a  wish  to  be 
allowed  to  go  to  Bourbon  and  drink  the  waters  of  that  healing  spa. 
The  third  letter,  mentioned  by  Stair  to  Craggs,  in  which  Mar  ex- 
presses his  desire  to  leave  James,  is  not  published  with  the  other 
two.^  Indeed  there  is  a  mystery  about  Stair's  remark  that  Mar 
is  ready,  on  the  terms  mentioned,  to  desert  James.  On  June  17 
Stair  writes  to  Stanhope  that  he  is  in  doubt  as  to  Mar's  repentance ; 
"  he  has  made  no  direct  step  towards  abandoning  the  Pretender."  ^^ 
Now  Mar's  letter  in  the  third  person,  described  by  Stair  on  May  29, 
was  said  to  be  direct  enough,  and  in  his  own  hand.  On  July  8 
Stair  announced  that  the  Jacobites  have  intelligence  of  Mar's  in- 
tended defection,* 

The   British  king,   then  in   Hanover,   required  of  Mar  not  only 

*  After    consultinj;    llic    Stale    I'.apers   in    MS.,    I    (ind   notliing   that   indicates 
treachery  to  James  in  Mar's  letters  to  Stair. 


JEALOUSIES   OF   MAR   (17 1 9).  269 

desertion  of  James  but  "  considerable  services  "  in  the  treacherous 
way.  Stair  said  that  these  could  not  be  expected,  and  suggested 
that  meanwhile  a  pension  should  be  given  to  Mar  equal  to  the  value 
of  his  estate  :  George  would  thus  be  master  of  his  good  behaviour. 
Later  (October  20,  1719)  Stair  writes  :  "As  to  Lord  Mar,  the  things 
that  shock  you  shock  me,  but  our  business  is  to  break  the  Pretender's 
party  by  detaching  him  from  it.  .  .  .  Whatever  his  Lordship's 
intentions  may  be,  it  is  very  certain  in  a  few  months  the  Jacobites 
will  pull  his  throat  out."  Stair  thinks  that  James  has  his  suspicions 
of  Mar,  while  the  Jacobites  hold  that  his  wife,  a  sister  of  Lady  Mary 
Wortley  Montagu,  "  is  a  spy,  and  has  corrupted  her  husband.  This, 
you  may  depend  upon  it,  is  true."  On  October  29  Stair  learns  that 
James  has  written  to  Mar  "  the  kindest  letter,  with  the  warmest  in- 
vitation to  return  to  his  post."^^ 

The  sole  result  of  Alberoni's  plan  had  thus  been  to  determine 
Mar  to  leave  a  sinking  ship,  and  to  split  the  Jacobite  party  on  the 
question  of  his  "  considerable  services  "  to  the  British  Government. 
What  these  services  were — or,  rightly  or  wrongly,  were  supposed 
to  be — will  appear  in  the  course  of  events.  These  now  carry  us 
to  the  little  diversion  which  the  Earl  Marischal,  with  300  Spanish 
soldiers,  was  to  cause  in  the  north-west  of  Scotland.  If  he  could 
raise  the  clans  while  Ormonde,  landing  with  5000  men  in  the 
west  of  England,  was  joined  by  the  English  Jacobites,  the  British 
Government  would  have  need  of  their  Swiss  and  Dutch  auxiliaries. 
James  Keith,  Marischal's  brother,  went  through  southern  France 
collecting  the  exiles  and  distributing  money.  But  after  picking 
up  Tullibardine  at  Orleans,  and  reaching  Paris  early  in  March, 
he  found  fatally  divided  counsels.  He  showed  credentials  from 
Ormonde  to  Seaforth  and  Campbell  of  Glendaruel,  who  said  that 
these  would  have  little  weight  with  them  if  they  had  not  already 
been  told  by  Mar  to  obey  Ormonde's  orders.  Keith  saw  that 
they  were  factiously  disposed,  and,  when  they  met  him  at  Rouen, 
Glendaruel  let  it  be  understood  that  Dillon,  at  Saint  Germain, 
ought  to  have  been  consulted. 

These  were  obscure  jealousies,  which  arose  from  James's  too  tardy 
but  plainly  expressed  want  of  trust  in  the  prudence  of  the  exiles  at 
Saint  Germain,  and  also,  says  Keith,  "the  Duke  of  Mar  had  not  been 
so  much  employed  in  the  matter  as  they  wished."  ^^  Mar's  part, 
we  know,  had  merely  been  to  travel  north  with  Perth  from  Rome, 
so  as  to  draw  attention  from  the   movements  of  James,  early  in 


270  TULLIBARDINE   AND   MARISCHAL. 

February.  Mar  himself,  just  before  he  and  the  king  then  separated, 
had  written  to  James  a  letter  disclaiming  desire  of  office  if  all  went 
well.  "  I  never  aimed  at  being  thought  what  is  commonly  called 
to  princes  a  favourite,  but  my  ambition  is  to  have  the  honour,  as 
it  will  be  a  pleasure,  of  being  near  your  person," — precisely  the 
position  that  "  a  favourite "  always  does  hold.  To  continue  to 
hold  this  post  (Gentleman  of  the  Bedchamber),  with  a  seat  in  the 
Cabinet,  would  satisfy  Mar,  he  said, — as  well  it  might.  No  position, 
not  that  of  holding  the  seals,  would  carry  more  power  and  influence. 
As  to  the  expedition  of  Ormonde,  Mar  only  asked  not  to  be  sent 
to  Scotland,  where,  indeed,  his  presence  would  not  have  been 
welcome  to  the  clans,  because  he  had  deserted  them  in  1 7 1 5.  He 
pointed  to  TuUibardine,  the  person  chosen  to  command  in  1717, 
as  the  most  desirable  leader  in  Scotland.**^  Mar  would  like  to 
join  later  as  a  volunteer.*^ 

The  point  of  this  letter  was  to  have  TuUibardine,  not  Marischal, 
as  commander  in  Scotland, — a  scheme  which  Keith  had  detected, 
and,  therefore,  had  not  consulted  Dillon.  Asked  why  he  did  not, 
Keith  said  that,  being  known  at  Saint  Germain,  he  could  not  go 
there,  the  folk  there  were  so  imprudent.  Glendaruel's  real  object  was 
to  get  from  Dillon  an  old  commission  of  1 7 1 7,  whereby  Seaforth 
was  to  act  as  James's  general-in-chief  in  Scotland  in  the  event  of 
invasion  from  Sweden.  It  was  a  repetition  of  the  conduct  of  Huntly, 
hugging  his  old  commission,  while  the  great  Montrose  was  acting 
as  commander-in-chief.  However,  they  all  left  Havre  on  March 
1 9  ;  their  departure  from  Paris  was  announced  by  Stair  to  Craggs 
(March  15).  "2 

On  April  4  they  touched  at  the  isle  of  Lewis,  and  found  that 
the  Earl  Marischal  had  arrived  with  his  Spanish  three  hundred. 
They  all  met  at  Stornoway.  TuUibardine,  though  Marischal  asked 
what  commissions  each  of  them  held,  suppressed  the  fact  that  he 
had  obtained  the  commission  of  171 7  from  Dillon,  and  wished  to 
tarry  in  the  Lewis  till  news  came  of  Ormonde's  arrival.  It  was 
not  really  the  safer  course,  as  English  ships  of  war  would  blockade 
them  in  the  isle  of  Lewis,  and  Marischal  proposed  a  dash  across 
country  against  Inverness.  Next  day  I'ullibardine  produced  his  com- 
mission. Marischal  bowed  to  authority,  while  retaining  command 
of  the  two  frigates,  and  TuUibardine  yielded  to  the  general  prefer- 
ence for  the  march  on  Inverness.  Glendaruul  went  off  on  his  errand, 
and  the  ships,  beaten  by  contrary  squalls,  did  not  reach  Loch  Alsh, 


BEFORE   GLENSIIIEL.  2/1 

opening  into  Loch  Duich,  and  Kintail,  Seaforth's  country,  till  April 
13.  On  the  north  shore  at  the  head  of  Loch  Duich  is  Inverinate; 
opposite,  on  the  other  side  of  Loch  Duich,  the  river  Shiel,  flowing 
east  to  west,  yields  a  pass  towards  the  eastern  coast  and  Inver- 
ness through  Glen  Moriston,  striking  Loch  Ness  and  the  way 
to  Inverness  a  few  miles  east  of  the  Fort  Augustus  of  to-day. 
Marischal  was  for  surprising  Inverness,  but  Tullibardine  did 
nothing.  The  reason  was,  says  Keith,  that  Tullibardine,  not  know- 
ing what  Marischal's  commission  might  be,  had  sent  circulars 
advising  all  that  James  desired  them  to  sit  still  till  news  came  of 
Ormonde's  landing  in  England.  Matters  were  so  confused  that 
either  party  in  the  divided  camp  may  have  been  in  the  right : 
Keith,  of  course,  takes  his  brother's  side. 

Days  passed,  while  Marischal  advised  the  attack  on  Inverness  with 
such  Mackenzies  as  gathered  to  their  chief,  Seaforth.  Tullibardine 
hesitated,  and  Clanranald,  when  he  arrived  with  Lochiel  (April  20), 
was  also  for  delay.  Tullibardine,  like  Agamemnon  in  the  '  Iliad,' 
now  proposed  flight  in  the  ships,  but  Marischal  commanded  these, 
and,  with  great  courage  and  decision,  sent  them  away  on  April  30. 
He  had  scorned  to  join  the  flight  of  Mar  and  the  king  from 
Montrose  in  17 15,  and  he  remained  of  the  same  temper.  If 
Ormonde  did  arrive,  what  would  he  think  when  he  learned  that 
the  leaders  of  the  Scottish  expedition  had  turned  tail  without 
firing  a  shot?  The  future  field-marshal,  James  Keith,  then  aged 
twenty-two,  was  of  his  brother's  mind.  Most  of  the  ammunition 
was  stored  in  the  ancient  castle  of  Eilean  Donan,  on  an  islet  close 
to  the  north  shore  of  Loch  Duich ;  and  meanwhile  a  British 
squadron  beset  the  exit  from  Loch  Alsh  to  the  open  sea,  and  on 
May  10  three  ships  battered  and  seized  Castle  Donan,  took  such 
Spanish  troops  as  had  been  left  in  this  death-trap,  perfectly  un- 
tenable against  guns,  and  made  prize  of  the  stores.  A  smaller 
magazine  at  the  head  of  Loch  Duich  was  blown  up  by  the 
Spaniards,  and  the  tiny  invading  force,  as  yet  not  joined  by  the 
clans,  was  in  a  net.  Tullibardine  had  given  reluctant  friends  an 
excellent  excuse  for  not  joining,  but  now  he  wanted  men.  The 
news,  however,  came  that  Ormonde's  force  had  been  dispersed  by 
the  storms,  so  that  but  a  thousand  broadswords,  with  Lord  George 
Murray's  Atholl  men,  Lochiel's,  Seaforth's,  and  some  of  Rob  Roy's 
Macgregors,  were  assembled.  At  Inverness  General  Wightman  had 
been  reinforced  :   he  had  about  850   bayonets,  a  hundred  or  two 


2/2  BATTLE   OF   GLENSHIEL   (17 1 9). 

of  the  Munros,  120  dragoons,  and  four  light  mortars.  To  meet 
them  the  Jacobites  advanced  up  Glenshiel  to  the  bridge  five  miles 
above  Invershiel.^^ 

They  selected  a  pass  where  the  road  is  overhung  by  a  steep 
hillside,  the  pass  being  a  narrow  road  between  the  hillside  and  the 
rocky  bed  of  the  brawling  river,  or  large  burn,  for  it  is  little  more. 
On  June  9  Wightman  encamped  at  Strathloan,  on  the  east  side  of 
the  pass,  watched  by  Lord  George  Murray  and  his  small  contingent. 
Next  day  about  2  p.m.  the  hostile  forces  viewed  each  other.  The 
Jacobites  had  barricaded  the  road,  and  entrenched  the  steep  hillside 
which  commanded  it  on  the  north.  Here  the  main  body  was 
posted,  with  the  remnant  of  the  Spanish  regulars,  while  Seaforth 
occupied  a  still  higher  point — Scaur  Ouran — on  the  left.  On  the 
Jacobite  right  and  on  the  south  side  of  the  water  of  Shiel  Lord 
George  Murray,  with  150  men,  occupied  a  knoll.  Marischal  was 
with  Seaforth  ;  our  old  friend.  Brigadier  Mackintosh,  was  with  the 
Spaniards  ;  Tullibardine  and  Glendaruel  were  with  the  centre.  The 
English  General  placed  his  dragoons  on  the  level  by  the  road,  and 
attacked  Lord  George  on  the  south  side  of  the  river  with  his 
Highland  levies  and  some  red-coats.  Lord  George's  men  fled 
across  a  difificult  ravine  and  stayed  there,  unassailed.  Wightman 
then  attacked  Seaforth  on  his  high  hill  on  the  Jacobite  left.  There 
was  skirmishing  for  two  or  three  hours ;  the  Macgregors  and 
Mackenzies  were  not  very  alert,  and  the  Jacobites  of  the  clans 
gradually  withdrew  to  the  hill  crests  and  away.  Defence  of  a 
position  was  not  \\\^v[  forte ;  a  charge  down-hill  was  not  called  for 
by  their  officers ;  probably  they  were  afraid  of  being  charged  on 
the  flank  by  Wightman's  dragoons. 

According  to  Tullibardine,  the  Jacobite  force  kept  gradually  melt- 
ing away,  and  the  unsupported  Spaniards  followed.  Next  day  the 
Spaniards  surrendered  as  prisoners  of  war,  and  Tullibardine  says 
that  nobody  approved  of  his  proposal  to  keep  marching  about, — 
the  Spaniards  remarking  that  they  could  not  live  without  supplies. 
Tullibardine  writes  (June  16)  from  Glengarry,  "  My  Lord  Marischal's 
ill-concerted  expedition  is  to  be  now  shamefully  dispersed  at  last."  ^* 
Perhaps  either  Marischal  or  Tullibardine  could  have  done  better  if 
not  thwarted  by  the  other  commander.  Seaforth,  who  was  danger- 
ously wounded,  and  who  declared  that  his  men  were  unsupported, 
the  others  merely  "standing  by,"  won  more  honour  than  his  com- 
panions.    The   men   engaged  on  both  sides   may  have   numbered 


SUCCESS   OV   CHARLES   WOGAN.  273 

about  2300,  and  probably  not  more  than  200  were  killed  or 
wounded.  The  leaders  skulked  in  the  braes  of  Knoydart  and 
Glengarry's  country  till  they  found  opportunities  of  retiring  abroad. 
The  English  troops,  who  behaved  very  well,  had  the  advantage  of 
attacking  an  enemy  who  were  not  accustomed  to  acting  on  the 
offensive.  Dundee  would  probably  have  mustered  the  Highlanders 
on  the  hillside  north  of  the  river,  and  trusted  to  a  charge  with  the 
broadsword ;  but  he  had  a  handful  of  horse  at  Killiecrankie, 
Tullibardine  had  none  at  Glenshiel,  and  his  lack  of  horse,  with 
the  advantage  which  the  English  possessed  in  their  mortars  and  in 
taking  the  offensive,  prevailed  over  a  little  band  of  Highlanders 
not  united,  except  in  the  case  of  the  Mackenzies,  by  the  sentiment 
of  clanship.  It  was  a  disastrous  beginning  of  the  careers,  later  so 
distinguished,  of  James  Keith  and  of  Lord  George  Murray. 

James  lingered  on  in  Spain,  which  was  being  worsted  in  the 
campaign  against  France,  till  September,  when  a  graceful  reason 
for  his  return  to  Italy  was  presented  by  the  arrival  of  his  bride  in 
Italy.  Charles  Wogan  had  faced  the  dangers  of  an  English  or  an 
Austrian  block,  and  had  done  what,  in  November  17 18,  he  set 
himself  to  do.  Leaving  Urbino,  then,  with  a  commission  from 
James,  he  passed  through  Bologna,  where  Cardinal  Origo  told  him 
that  he  would  soon  be  returning,  with  no  princess.  "  Unless  I 
bring  her,  your  Eminence  will  see  my  face  no  more,"  he  replied. 
He  was  a  man  inspired  by  the  old  chivalry  and  by  the  tradition 
of  that  "  very  beautiful  person  "  and  very  brave  man,  his  ancestor, 
who  led  a  troop  of  cavaliers  through  Cromwellian  England  to  join 
Glencairn  and  avenge  Montrose.  From  Bologna,  Wogan  travelled 
to  Innspruck  in  the  disguise  of  a  French  pedlar,  for,  as  the  phrase 
ran,  he  "had  the  tongues,"  being  an  accomplished  scholar,  the 
early  friend  of  Parnell,  the  poet,  and  of  Pope.  He  was  intro- 
duced, by  means  of  his  pack  and  wares,  to  the  captive  ladies, 
Clementina  and  her  mother,  and  gave  them  letters  from  James. 
Both  ladies  were  romantic,  and  gladly  entered  into  his  plan  of 
escape,  subject  to  the  permission  of  Prince  James  Sobieski.  Wogan 
therefore  visited  him  at  Ohlau,  but  found  him  a  person  of  unad- 
venturous  character.  "The  time  for  Quixotades  is  passed,"  he 
said.  But  Sobieski  liked  the  gay  and  courageous  cavalier,  and  on 
New  Year's  Day  17 19  offered  him,  as  ^frennes,  a  valuable  relic — 
a  snuff-box  of  turquoise  taken  by  John  Sobieski  from  the  tent  of 
the  Grand  Vizier  on   the   day  when   he   smote  the  Turks  before 

VOL.  IV.  S 


274  WOGAN   AND  JAMES   SOBIESKI. 

Vienna.  Wogan  respectfully  declined  the  gift :  he  would  not 
return  to  Italy  with  so  rich  a  gift  for  himself  and  with  a  refusal 
to  his  master  and  king. 

Sobieski  was  touched :  he  pressed  the  jewel  on  Wogan,  invited 
him  to  dinner,  and,  in  a  convivial  mood,  gave  him  full  powers  to 
do  his  best  for  Clementina's  rescue.  Wogan  inquired  as  to  how 
a  passport  from  Vienna,  for  the  security  of  the  princess  travelling 
through  Austria,  could  be  obtained,  when  to  his  horror  the  prince 
called  an  Austrian  adventurer,  Baron  Echersberg,  to  join  the  con- 
clave. This  man,  Wogan  reckoned,  would  betray  all  to  the 
emperor.  When  Sobieski  and  Von  Echersberg  had  conversed  in 
German,  Wogan  determined  to  ply  the  Austrian  with  Tokay  in  his 
own  rooms.  "  Dull  men  are  fond  of  politics,"  says  Wogan,  and  he 
delighted  the  Baron  by  revealing  to  him,  as  a  profound  secret  and 
an  accomplished  fact,  or  a  probable  conclusion,  the  Russo-Swedish 
alliance  in  favour  of  James,  which  Ormonde  had  failed  to  procure 
in  1 7 1 7.  His  king  desired  to  have  an  ambassador,  a  German,  at 
the  Court  of  Charles  XII. :  he  was  commissioned  to  select  a  brave 
and  intelligent  Teuton,  and  in  Baron  Von  Echersberg  he  had  recog- 
nised his  ideal.  On  the  happy  Restoration,  the  Garter  and  a  great 
estate  in  England  would  give  to  the  Baron  the  eminence  and  the 
opportunities  which  Alberoni  enjoyed  in  Spain.  It  was  an  age  of 
great  adventurers,  like  Law  "  of  Lauriston  "  in  France.  The  Baron 
took  the  bait,  became  Wogan's  sworn  ally,  and  remained  constant 
to  him,  Clementina,  and  the  Cause  even  after  the  news  arrived  of 
the  death  of  Charles  XII. 

The  fair  Countess  de  Berg,  dear  to  Prince  Sobieski,  suspected 
the  intrigue,  so  Wogan  did  not  disappear  obscurely  from  Ohlau, 
but  set  forth  in  a  coach  with  six  horses  for  Prague.  But  before 
making  that  move,  intended  to  disguise  a  secret  trip  to  Vienna, 
an  almost  incredible  prospect  opened  itself  to  Wogan.  Peter  the 
Great  had  30,000  men  stationed  within  twenty  miles  from  Ohlau, 
under  Prince  Czerematoff.  Wogan  declares  that  Czerematoff, 
necessarily  by  Peter's  orders,  secretly  invited  Prince  Sobieski  to 
put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  30,000,  seize  the  Polish  throne, 
and  declare  war  in  revenge  for  Clementina's  arrest,  backed  of 
course  by  Russia,  who  would  find  her  own  reward,  obviously, 
in  Poland  under  a  Sobieski.  After  sui)pcr  the  prince  consented, 
TO.  (f)poveovT  ava  Ov/xov  a  pi'  ov  reXeeadai  efxeWov.  But  when 
day  dawned  the  prince  knew  that  his  was  a  deceitful  dream.      He 


WOGAN'S   WILD   GEESE.  275 

was  old,  he  had  no  son, — in  fact,  he  thought  better  of  the  proposal. 
Wogan  therefore  made  for  Vienna,  where  he  hoped  that  the  Papal 
nuncio  would  mollify  the  emperor.  But  the  emperor,  he  learned, 
was  the  puppet  of  England ;  so  Wogan  rode  to  Augsburg,  where 
he  had  arranged  to  meet  the  Starosta  Chlebouski  and  his  wife,  who 
would  chaperon  the  princess, — a  chaperon,  of  course,  was  absolutely 
necessary  when  a  young  adventurer  was  to  carry  off  a  princess  of 
sixteen  to  be  the  bride  of  a  king.  The  Chlebouskis  had  lost  heart, 
and  came  not ;  worse,  Prince  Sobieski  lost  heart  and  withdrew  his 
commission.  He  had  two  other  daughters ;  let  James  choose  one 
of  them — the  grave  (who  was  really  the  appropriate  bride),  or  the 
recklessly  gay. 

Wogan  was  not  to  be  defeated.  Lurking  at  Augsburg  as  a 
French  fugitive  from  his  creditors,  he  induced  James  to  send  a 
Florentine,  Vezzosi,  to  Ohlau,  to  ask  Sobieski  for  a  renewal  of  his 
commission.  He  himself  rode  to  Schelestadt,  near  Strasburg, 
where  lay  a  regiment  of  the  "  Wild  Geese,"  Dillon's  Irish,  among 
them  Major  Gaydon,  Wogan's  uncle.  Captain  Misset,  and  Captain 
O'Toole,  a  gigantic  blue-eyed  Irishman,  while  Lally,  commanding 
in  Dillon's  absence,  was  in  the  secret  of  the  scheme.  He  was  the 
father  of  another  Jacobite,  later  famous,  Lally  ToUendal.  A 
chaperon,  failing  Madame  Chlebouski,  was  found  in  Mrs  Misset, 
herself  about  to  become  a  mother ;  while  her  servant,  Jeanneton,  a 
maid  of  heroic  proportions,  friendly  to  O'Toole,  would  be  useful, 
and  was  told  that  they  planned  to  carry  off  an  heiress  as  his  bride. 
Not  being  of  a  jealous  temper,  Jeanneton  was  delighted  to  join  in 
the  adventure. 

We  have  reached  the  month  of  March  17 19,  and  James  had 
arrived  in  Spain.  By  April  5,  as  we  saw,  the  curious  rumour  that 
Wogan  was  successful,  and  that  the  princess  was  free,  had  reached 
the  Strasburg  news-letters.  The  others  were  alarmed,  but  Wogan 
said  that  the  gaolers  of  the  princess  would  be  put  off  their  guard, 
and  argue  that,  as  his  plot  was  known,  he  would  desist.  On 
April  6  they  set  out  by  various  routes  for  Strasburg,  where  Wogan 
was  taken  to  be  Mar  and  was  arrested.  The  error  was  discovered 
and  he  was  released,  though,  as  he  justly  remarks,  he  was  "  more 
important  than  ten  such  dukes."  Mar  himself  was  waiting  to  see 
how  the  Spanish  enterprise  would  prosper  before  going  north  to 
Geneva  and  putting  himself  in  touch  with  Stair. 

At  Strasburg  Wogan  purchased  a  strong  berline,  with  a  double 


276  A   GREAT   ADVENTURE. 

set  of  harness,  for  he  left  nothing  to  chance.  The  commander  at 
Strasburg,  d'AngerviUiers,  wished  them  god-speed, — "  You  are  the 
lads  to  conquer  or  die."  The  Florentine  emissary  to  Sobieski  had 
brought  a  renewed  commission  for  Wogan,  and  they  drove  across 
the  bridge  of  Kehl,  Gaydon  passing  as  Comte  de  Cernes,  Mrs 
Gaydon  as  the  Comtesse,  Wogan  as  the  brother  of  de  Cernes,  and 
Misset,  O'Toole,  and  Vezzosi,  the  Florentine,  as  servants.  Reach- 
ing Nazareth,  a  village  distant  a  day's  journey  from  Innspruck, 
Misset  went,  disguised  as  a  French  merchant,  with  cyphered  letters 
to  Chateaudoux,  the  intendant  of  the  Princess  Sobieski.  He 
was  informed  that  Jeanneton,  apparently  in  the  character  of  his 
mistress,  was  to  be  smuggled  into  the  house  where  the  captive 
ladies  lay,  at  midnight,  April  27.  A  woman  would  later  leave  the 
house,  but  she  would  not  be  Jeanneton.  The  princess  would 
borrow  Jeanneton's  hood  and  walk  forth,  while  Jeanneton  would 
occupy  her  bed,  and,  being  very  unwell,  would  not  receive  the 
official  who,  twice  a-day,  had  to  wait  on  and  inspect  the  captive 
Clementina.  After  giving  Chateaudoux  his  orders  Misset  was  to 
go  forward  and  await  the  party  at  an  inn  on  the  crest  of  the 
Brenner  Pass.  Next  day  Wogan  heard  from  Chateaudoux  that 
James  had  a  rival.  The  Princess  of  Baden  was  at  Innspruck, 
wooing  Clementina  for  her  son,  while  the  King  of  England  was 
to  provide  a  tocher  of  ;i^ioo,ooo.  But  on  April  27  the  Princess 
of  Baden  was  to  set  out  for  Italy,  as  she  did. 

On  the  27th  of  April,  when  the  party  of  rescue  left  Nazareth,  all 
was  imperilled.  Jeanneton  was  very  tall,  Clementina  was  short. 
It  was  necessary  that  Jeanneton  should  discard  her  high-heeled 
shoon  for  slippers,  to  help  to  dissemble  her  height,  but  Mrs  Misset 
and  all  the  men  had  literally  to  throw  themselves  at  her  feet  before 
she  would  consent.  Under  cloud  of  night  they  alighted  at  the 
Black  Eagle  in  Innspruck  in  a  gale  and  a  deluge  of  rain.  Chateau- 
doux met  Wogan  and  declared  that  a  princess  could  not  walk  the 
streets  on  such  a  night ;  but  Wogan  was  resolute,  and  a  page, 
Kouska,  was  ordered  to  meet  him  at  the  bridge  and  act  as  guide. 
At  half-past  eleven  Jeanneton,  in  a  furious  temper,  and  Wogan, 
met  Kouska  at  the  door  of  the  prison-house  of  the  princesses. 
The  sentinel  had  taken  shelter  in  a  tavern  opposite ;  a  faint  watery 
moon  and  the  white  snow  gave  a  doubtful  light.  Jeanneton  slipped 
into  the  house,  and  Wogan,  waiting  in  a  dark  corner,  heard  the 
chimes  at  the  quarter  and  the  half  hour  after  midnight.     At  last 


ESCAPE   OF   CLEMENTINA   (17  19).  277 

a  woman  in  a  wet  and  heavy  riding-cloak  emerged,  passed  through 
the  door  of  the  court,  and  groped  her  way  to  the  dark  corner  where 
Wogan  waited.  Behind  her  followed  Kouska  with  the  Sobicski 
rubies,  and  the  crown  jewels  carried  off  by  James  II.  and  sent  to 
Clementina  rather  rashly  by  James  III.,  in  an  ordinary-looking 
parcel.  The  pearls,  worn  by  unhappy  queens,  and  destined  to 
adorn  two  other  queens  not  more  fortunate  than  they,  decorate 
a  portrait  of  Clementina  taken  at  Rome  before  she  had  ceased 
to  smile, — very  large  pear-shaped  pearls,  like  those  in  an  early 
portrait  of  Mary  Stuart. 

Not  knowing,  probably,  what  the  parcel  contained,  Kouska  threw 
it  behind  the  door,  when  Clementina,  thoroughly  wet  from  a  fall  in 
the  snow,  reached  the  Black  Eagle  with  Wogan.  O'Toole  drove 
the  berline  to  the  door,  the  party  entered  it,  and  had  gone  some 
way  when  Clementina  cried,  "  Where  are  my  jewels  ?  "  O'Toole 
galloped  back  to  the  inn :  the  outer  door  was  barred,  but  by  a  great 
exertion  of  strength  he  forced  the  obstacle,  seized  the  jewels,  and 
hurried  back  to  the  party,  who  had  passed,  says  Wogan,  a  quarter 
of  an  hour  that  was  "  terrible  but  interesting,"  as  the  discovery  of 
the  packet  and  its  contents  would  have  caused  instant  pursuit. 

The  rest  of  the  journey  was  delayed  by  the  Princess  of  Baden, 
who,  travelling  south,  had  taken  up  all  the  relays  of  fresh  horses  in 
advance.  An  imperial  courier,  hurrying  to  warn  the  frontier  com- 
manders, was  ingeniously  intoxicated  and  robbed  of  his  despatches 
by  Misset  and  O'Toole.  It  was  not  till  the  afternoon  of  the  day  of 
the  escape,  April  28,  that  the  officials  at  Innspruck  became  aware 
of  the  flight  of  the  caged  bird.^^  On  April  30,  after  mirthful 
adventures,  in  which  Clementina  showed  great  courage  and  cheer- 
fulness, the  fugitives  crossed  the  Austrian  frontier ;  on  May  2  they 
arrived  in  Bologna.  One  curious  point  is  noted  in  Gaydon's 
narrative.  A  princess  of  the  Caprara  family  had  been  spoken  of 
as  a  bride  for  James,  and  Clementina  knew  it.  She  insisted  on 
seeing  this  lady's  portrait  in  the  Palazzo  Caprara,  and,  on  beholding 
it,  to  the  surprise  of  her  companions  (who  knew  nothing)  she 
blushed  a  vivid  scarlet !  In  fact,  under  all  the  charm  and  gaiety 
of  Clementina  lay  a  fund  of  jealousy,  the  cause  of  many  sorrows. 
On  May  9  James  Murray  (second  son  of  the  fifth  Viscount  Stormont, 
an  active  and  trustworthy  agent  of  the  Cause)  was  proxy  wedded  to 
the  royal  bride.  As  Jacobite  Earl  of  Dunbar  (1721)  he  became 
much  detested  by  the  divided  Jacobites,  who  at  this  moment  were 


278  A  MELANCHOLY  HONEYMOON. 

concentrating  their  hatred  on  Mar.  James  could  have  no  trusted 
Minister  whom  one  or  another  division  of  the  party,  at  home 
and  abroad,  did  not  despise  and  dislike.  Proceeding  to  Rome, 
Clementina  was  placed  in  the  Ursuline  convent,  while  the  honours 
of  the  city  of  Rome  were  showered  on  Wogan  and  his  friends. 
James  made  him  a  baronet,  and  he  was  appropriately  advanced  to 
the  Governorship  of  La  Mancha  in  Spain.  He  corresponded  with 
Swift,  whom  he  regarded  as  an  Irish  patriot,  but  he  did  not  set  out 
again  to  seek  adventures  in  1745. 

On  June  7  Alberoni  gave  James  the  first  tidings  of  the  escape  of 
his  bride.  He  confirmed  the  news  on  June  8*^  The  Cardinal 
also  showed  James  plainly  that  attempts  on  England  and  Scotland 
were  hopeless  for  the  time.  On  August  14  he  set  out  from  Vinaros, 
and  on  September  5,  from  Montefiascone,  announced  to  the  King 
of  Spain  and  to  Ormonde  his  marriage.  "The  Queen  has  sur- 
passed my  expectations,  and  I  am  happy  with  her," — the  very  first 
expression  of  happiness  in  his  correspondence,  and  tempered  by  his 
being  "in  a  terrible  way  as  to  money  matters "  (September  14).*'^ 
The  Pope  was  James's  only  resource,  and  the  Pope  was  not  lavish, 
as  James  Keith  found  when  he  visited  his  king.  James  keeps  ex- 
pressing his  hope  that  Mar  will  be  allowed  to  leave  Geneva  and 
return  to  him.  "  In  the  meantime  I  shall  be  my  own  secretary." 
He  found  Montefiascone,  in  the  October  rains,  "a  very  melancholy 
place." 

It  was  a  melancholy  honeymoon, — a  defeated,  disappointed, 
laborious  bridegroom,  earnestly  toilsome  as  his  own  secretary;  a 
bride  of  half  his  age,  who  found  that  her  crown  was  pinchbeck, 
that  money  was  very  scarce,  that  her  lord  was  deep  in  affairs,  and 
that  he  in  no  respect  resembled  her  merry  knight,  adventurous 
Charles  Wogan ;  while  her  father,  in  disgrace  for  her  escapade, 
was  deprived  of  his  duchies,  and  had  retired  to  a  monastery. 
The  poor  child  lost  her  spirits,  lost  her  even  temper,  became 
irritable,  and  finally  had  a  grievance  which  she  would  not  reveal. 
The  world — even  the  Jacobites — took  her  part,  historians  take  her 
part :  it  is  natural.  James,  in  his  usual  calm  patient  way,  tried  to 
reason  with  his  wife — a  course  proverbially  futile :  her  jealousy 
poured  the  last  drop  into  his  cup  of  bitterness. 


NOTES.  279 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XI. 

^  Berwick,  ii.  235-237. 
2  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  359. 
^  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  474,  475. 

•*  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  495  ;  Miscellany,  Scottish  History  Society,  ii.  373-385. 
'  Stuart  Papers,  ii.  477. 

"  State  Papers,  Foreign.      Record  Office.     Vol.  160. 

^  Mahon,    i.    260,    261.     Parliamentary   History,   vii.   396-420:    the   Swedish 
Correspondence. 

8  Miscellany,  Scottish  History  Society,  ii.  422,  423. 
"  Miscellany,  Scottish  History  Society,  ii.  419-422. 

^•^  Miscellany,  Scottish  Histoiy  Society,  ii.  418. 

^1  The  publication  of  the  third  volume  of  the  Stuart  Papers  will  prove  the  truth 
of  this  or  of  Dr  Erskine's  note  to  the  opposite  effect ;  at  best  he  sailed  very  near 
the  wind. 

^2  Lockhart,  ii.  15. 

^^  Lockhart,  ii.  29-31. 

'•*  State  Papers,  Foreign.  Record  Office.  Vol.  161.  The  Jacobite  Attempt 
of  1 719,  Scottish  History  Society. 

'"  Haile,  Mary  of  Modena,  pp.  500-503,  and  Appendix  D.,  p.  516. 

'''  I  found  a  hint  of  this,  in  a  paper  written  by  James  after  his  wife's  death,  among 
the  Stuart  MSS.  Unfortunately  I  have  lost  the  copy,  and  the  reminiscence  must 
be  taken  merely  as  such. 

^^  The  various  accounts  of  the  romance  of  Clementina,  including  the  pleasant 
version  of  Wogan,  have  been  published  by  Dr  Gilbert,  Dublin,  1894.  See,  too. 
Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  x,  6.  216.     Lord  Braye's  Papers. 

^^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  162. 

^*  Wogan,  and  Glover's  Stunrt  Papers,  p.  48,  note  :  1847.  The  letters  are 
Atterbury's  Correspondence,  with  notes  from  the  other  Stuart  MSS. 

"^  Mahon,  i.  319. 

^^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  162. 

'■^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  p.  2. 

^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  15-17. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  a/«^/ Jacobite  Attempt,  1719,  xxxii. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  163. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  163. 

^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  206-216. 

^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  xxxiii. 

■■^  Stuart  Papers,  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  219-221. 

^"  Stuart  Papers,  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  p.  221. 

'^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  163. 

^  Stair  to  Craggs,  March  22,  17 19.  A  letter  from  Duke  of  Berwick  to  Duke 
of  Orleans  on  Ormonde's  (really  Marischal's)  embarkation  on  the  I2th,  with  four 
companies  of  Grenadiers  on  two  frigates  taken  by  the  Spaniards  from  the  French 
last  year  in  the  West  Indies,  probably  to  join  the  Spanish  fleet  either  at  Ushant  or 
Finisterre.     State  Papers,  Foreign,  France.     Record  Office. 

^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  xxxvi. 


28o  NOTES. 

^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  113-116. 

^^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  163. 

^  Hardwicke  Papers,  ii.  562-569. 

^  Stuart  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  163. 

^^  Hardwicke  Papers,  ii.  599. 

2^  Memoirs  of  Keith.     Spalding  Club,  p.  46. 

*"  'Lord  Mar's  Legacy,'  Scottish  History  Society,  No.  26,  pp.  147,  148.  The 
Hon.  Stuart  Erskine,  the  editor  of  '  Mar's  Legacy,'  says  in  a  note  that  the  person 
intended  is  "probably  either  Ormonde  or  Berwick,"  Ormonde  was  not  going  to 
Scotland  at  all,  and  Berwick  was  commanding  a  French  army  and  sending  intelli- 
gence of  Jacobite  movements  to  the  Regent  d'Orleans.  As  Keith  shows,  the 
reference  is  to  Tullibardine's  commission. 

■"  Stuart  Papers,  cited  in  '  Mar's  Legacy,'  pp.  146-149. 

*2  Memoirs  of  Keith,  pp.  42-44. 

^^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  17 19,  xlix. 

*^  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  269-273. 

■^  Wogan's  Narrative. 

*^  Stuart  Papers,  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  1719,  pp.  253,  254. 

■*'  Stuart  Papers,  The  Jacobite  Attempt  of  17 19,  p.  264. 


28 1 


CHAPTER    XII. 

HERESY     AND     SCHISM. 
172O-1740. 

The  one  important  result  of  Charles  Wogan's  chivalrous  enterprise 
was  the  birth  of  Prince  Charles  Edward,  on  Old  Year's  Night,  1720. 
Feuds,  jealousies,  and  conspiracies  centred  round  the  cradle  of  the 
child  who  was  to  keep  alive  the  old  wasting  fever  of  Jacobitism. 
But  for  the  moment  the  party  was  dormant,  and  Scotland  was 
little  if  at  all  affected  by  the  newest  and  least  hopeful  schemes 
of  1720-1722. 

Nothing  more  important  than  ecclesiastical  motions  was  in- 
teresting Scotland.  Both  the  Kirk  and  the  Episcopal  remnant 
were  agitated  by  various  causes  which  had  a  considerable  amount 
of  vitality,  and  for  long  affected,  and  indeed  still  in  some  measure 
do  affect,  the  religious  bodies  in  which  they  arose.  The  Kirk,  since 
the  Reformation,  had  been  little  vexed  by  laxity  of  religious  belief: 
the  "standards"  of  faith  had  not  been  impugned,  save  by  the 
Arminianism  of  some  of  the  conformist  clergy  before  the  Bishop's 
Wars  under  Charles  I.  These  peccant  thinkers  were  then  purged 
out,  and  the  Kirk,  whether  triumphant  or  persecuted,  or  rent  by 
the  schism  of  the  Cameronians,  was  unflinchingly  orthodox  in  her 
Calvinism.  Such  doubts  and  theories  as  were  entertained  by  the 
unhappy  boy  Aikenhead  attacked  many  sincere  believers,  as  their 
testimonies  declare,  but  were  stifled  or  vanquished  by  them,  and 
there  was  plenty  of  free-thinking  discourse  held  over  the  bottle ;  but 
the  ministers  and  professors  in  the  universities  had  continued  to 
rehearse,  over  and  over,  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  God  and  man, 
with  Adam  as  "the  Federal  Head"  of  the  descendants  whom  he 
involved,  without  consulting  them,  in  the  misdemeanour  of  dis. 
obedience,  and  the  guilt  associated  with  "that  forbidden  Tree." 


282  THE   BOURIGNON    HERESY. 

As  of  old  in  Eden,  so  now  in  Scotland,  it  was  woman  who 
tempted  man  to  his  doctrinal  fall.  Antoinette  Bourignon  was  a 
French  mystic  of  a  common  type,  not  welcome  to  Calvinism, 
and  sympathy  with  her  doctrines  caused  the  deposition  of  an 
Aberdeenshire  minister,  and,  later  (1706),  of  a  Presbyterian. 
They  doubted  whether  the  heathen  were  universally  reprobate, 
and  held,  with  Tertullian,  that  they  naturally  vocem  Christianam 
exclamanf,  now  and  then, — an  opinion  historically  confirmed  by 
the  study  of  some  elements  in  savage  religion.  The  Westminster 
Confession  was  thus  endangered,  and  even  a  professor  in  the 
University  of  Glasgow,  Mr  Simson,  was  delated  by  an  Edinburgh 
minister,  Mr  Webster,  for  teaching  heterodoxy. 

Theological  topics  are  ill-suited  for  the  secular  historian,  but 
the  development  or  degradation  of  doctrine  occupied  the  Scottish 
people  so  much  that  the  theme  must  be  faced.  Where  the  most 
awful  mysteries  of  human  destiny  and  the  actual  conditions  of 
Deity  were  discussed  in  the  jargon  of  Scottish  law, — when  we  hear 
much,  for  example,  of  "the  personal  property  of  the  Father," — the 
mind  naturally  shrinks  from  approaching  the  heated  arena  of  the 
Presbytery  and  the  Assembly,  where  such  matters  were  the  ground 
of  wranglings.  Perhaps  the  least  tedious  and  least  irreverent  way 
of  handling  the  subject  is  to  attend  to  the  personal  interest, — the 
characters  and  ways  of  the  Bostons,  Wodrows,  Hogs,  Erskines, 
and  others,  who  are  the  protagonists. 

Heresy  usually  begins  in  the  universities,  as  at  St  Leonard's 
College  before  the  Reformation.  The  excellent  Wodrow,  being 
a  historian  ("vous  etes  orfevre,  Monsieur  /osse  / "),  conceived  that 
"  the  increase  of  irreligion.  Deism,  and  Atheism  "  might  partly  be 
due  to  the  neglect  of  the  '  History  of  the  Sufferings,'  on  which  he 
was  engaged.^ 

Wodrow  also  noted  a  blow  against  the  doctrines  of  the  mystical 
Antoinette  in  an  extraordinary  murder.  "A  mighty  disciple"  of 
hers,  an  Aberdeenshire  Bourignonist,  a  schoolmaster,  was  deprived 
of  his  place  for  his  heresy.  He  came  to  Edinburgh,  naturally  to 
the  house  of  a  Gordon,  a  bailie  of  the  town,  as  tutor  to  his  sons. 
Walking  with  two  of  them  one  day  in  the  woods  opposite  the  castle, 
where  now  are  Castle  Street,  Hanover  Street,  and  Frederick  Street, 
this  man,  who  was  probably  mad,  cut  the  throats  of  the  poor  children, 
and,  less  effectually,  cut  his  own.  He  was  observed  and  seized  red- 
handed  :  his  hands  were  cut  off,  he  was  hanged,  but  breathed  for 


THE   HERETICAL   SIMSON    (17  17).  283 

half  an  hour  through  the  cut  in  his  throat.  "  He  seems  to  have 
been  possessed."  Wodrow  does  not,  it  is  fair  to  say,  attribute  the 
diabolical  possession  to  the  Bourignonian  doctrine.^ 

This  occurred  just  before  the  General  Assembly  of  May  171 7, 
in  which  the  case,  already  old,  of  the  heretical  Glasgow  professor, 
Mr  Simson,  was  debated,  Mr  Mitchell  being  Moderator.  A  com- 
mittee had  examined  into  the  affair,  and  found  that  Socinianism, 
Arminianism,  and,  we  hear  with  relief,  Jesuitism  were  not  proved 
against  the  divine ;  nor  was  he  guilty  of  any  sin  against  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  He  had,  however,  been  rather  rash  in  his 
solution  of  difificulties  in  theology,  and  the  committee  thought  that 
the  Assembly  should  warn  him  and  other  professors  and  clergymen 
to  be  careful.  Every  one,  they  added,  should  be  recommended  to 
avoid  uncharitable  judging, — a  reproof  to  Mr  Webster,  who  had 
published  a  violent  pamphlet  against  Mr  Simson. ^  There  were 
long  debates,  "  and  both  sides  mistook  [misunderstood]  one  another, 
I  am  sure,  for  two  hours."  Mr  Simson  alleged  that  babies  "  are 
not  in  the  same  state  with  reprobate  angels,"  founding  on  Acts 
ii.  39.  "  It  was  remitted  to  a  committee,"  and  then  there  was 
a  debate  of  six  hours  on  "moral  seriousness  and  grace."  Mr 
Simson  was  disapproved  of  for  saying  that  there  was  a  covenanted 
connection,  under  promise,  between  grace  and  moral  seriousness. 
The  House,  in  circumstances  so  exciting,  resounded  with  "a  very 
indecent  cry,"  for  which  the  Royal  Commissioner  requested  the 
Moderator  to  rebuke  the  brethren.  Finally,  a  committee,  including 
Mar's  brother.  Lord  Grange,  reconsidered  the  whole  business,  and, 
in  secular  phrase,  Mr  Simson  received  a  slight  reprimand,  and  was 
warned  not  to  do  it  again.  He  "  tended  to  attribute  too  much  to 
natural  reason." 

In  a  second  process  (1726-172 9)  graver  charges,  as  we  shall 
see,  of  verging  on  Socinianism  were  advanced.  Presbyteries  were 
consulted,  and,  while  most  were  for  deposing  Mr  Simson,  he  was 
merely  suspended.  This  appeared  culpable  neglect  to  the  "  private 
Christian "  of  a  Cameronian  tinge  who  wrote  '  Plain  Reasons  for 
Presbyterians  dissenting'  (1731),  and  was  one  of  the  causes  of 
a  secession  later. 

The  Kirk  was,  in  fact,  full  of  heated  passions,  orthodoxy  and 
Moderatism  being  at  war,  while  each  faction  claimed  to  be  alone 
orthodox.  Already  the  Presbytery  of  Auchterarder  had  been 
demanding  the  assent  of  a  young  divine  "  under  trials "  to  formu- 


284  THE  AUCHTERARDER  CREED. 

laries  of  their  own  invention.  One  of  these,  says  Wodrow,  "  made 
a  dreadful  noise,  and  hath  been  in  all  the  coffee-houses  at  London." 
We  shall  later  quote  "  the  Auchterarder  Creed,"  as  it  was  called ;  but 
it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Wodrow's  Editor,  the  Rev.  Mr  M'Crie, 
writing  at  the  time  of  the  Disruption  (1843),  appears  to  side  with 
Auchterarder  against  the  General  Assembly,  which  condemned  "  the 
Auchterarder  Creed,"  and  thereby  "injured  the  doctrines  of  grace."* 
Meanwhile  Mr  Hog,  in  defence  of  the  Auchterarder  Creed,  repub- 
lished part  of  an  old  book,  'The  Marrow  of  Modern  Divinity' 
(1646),  by  Mr  Fisher,  an  Englishman.  Who  was  this  Fisher, 
whose  dead  hand  threw  the  Marrow  bone  of  contention  among 
the  Scots  divines?  Those  who  did  not  admire  him  said  that  he 
was  a  barber,  an  Independent.  His  advocates  averred  that  he  was 
a  son  of  Sir  Edward  Fisher  of  Mickleton  in  Gloucestershire,  and  that 
he  had  been  a  gentleman  commoner  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 
Anthony  Wood  credits  the  B.N.C.  Mr  Fisher  with  'The  Marrow'; 
but  this  Fisher  was  a  Royalist,  while  the  author  of  '  The  Marrow ' 
is  recognised  as  an  Independent.^ 

At  all  events,  from  Fisher's  old  book  arose  that  Kirk-rending 
"  Marrow  Controversy,"  now  "  fallen  very  dim,"  though  very  viv- 
acious and  exciting  in  its  day.  The  topic  is,  indeed,  a  great  deal 
more  mysterious  than  the  alleged  betrayal  by  Mar  of  Atterbury, 
for  the  problem  involves  such  topics  as  "  the  conditionality  of 
grace,"  which  can  only  be  settled  by  an  Infallible  Head,  or  other 
infallible  authority,  not  acknowledged  by  the  Kirk.  We  are  there- 
fore obliged  to  consult  'The  Edinburgh  Christian  Instructor' 
(1831-1832),  which  contains  a  very  elaborate  account  of  the  con- 
troversy. The  more  precise  of  the  ministers  were  shocked,  among 
them  the  famed  Mr  Boston  of  Ettrick,  by  the  condemnation  of  the 
Auchterarder  Creed.  It  ran  thus  :  "  It  is  not  sound  and  orthodox 
to  teach  that  we  must  forsake  sin,  in  order  to  our  coming  to 
Christ  and  instating  us  in  covenant  with  God."  Mr  Boston,  at 
the  Assembly  of  1717,  "believed  the  proposition  to  be  true,  how- 
beit  not  well  worded."  A  great  deal  might  be  said  on  both  sides, 
but  not  much  could  be  said  in  favour  of  the  right  of  presbyteries 
to  frame  new  tests  of  faith  not  authorised  by  the  Kirk.  The 
wording  of  the  Auchterarder  test  was  so  indiscreet,  we  know, 
that  it  made  a  noise,  and  probably  caused  unseemly  mirth  in 
the  London  coffee-houses.  It  would  seem  to  embody  the  faith 
of  Trusty  Tompkins  in   *  Woodstock,'  —  a  saint   with  a  heavenly 


THE   MARROW   CONTROVERSY   (1718).  285 

licence  to  sin  at  will.  Though  Calvinism  is  not  the  faith  of 
Tompkins,  which  is  commonly  called  Antinomianism,  it  has  often 
been  understood  as  if  it  were.  The  Assembly  of  1 7 1 7  would  not 
tolerate  what  seemed  to  lean  towards  Antinomianism,  and,  as 
Boston  says,  "  for  several  years  there  ran  a  torrent,  in  the  public 
actings  of  this  Church  against  the  doctrine  of  grace,  under  the 
name  of  Antinomianism."  *" 

In  a  casual  conversation  at  the  Assembly  with  the  minister  of 
Crieff,  Boston  happened  to  mention  to  him  that  forgotten  book 
of  Independent  divinity,  '  The  Marrow.'  Mr  Drummond  procured 
a  copy,  and,  as  we  said,  Mr  Hog  of  Carnock  reprinted  much 
of  it,  with  an  Introduction  of  his  own  (17 18).  "By  a  beautiful 
step  of  Providence,"  Mr  Boston  was  the  occasion  of  much  that 
he  deemed  "to  the  signal  advantage  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
in  this  Church."  There  were  great  searchings  of  heart  among 
students  of  'The  Marrow.'  Principal  Hadow  of  St  Andrews,  a 
university  not  free  from  Jacobite  tendencies,  both  preached  and 
wrote  against  the  doctrines  of  the  old  Independent  divine, — "  the 
Cromwellian  Ghost "  as  he  was  called.  Principal  Hadow  detected 
Trusty  Tompkins  in  the  Ghost  (see  his  'Antinomianism  of  the 
Marrow  detected '),  and  also  a  tendency  to  believe  in  Universal 
Redemption.  The  General  Assembly  appointed  a  Committee  of 
Purity  of  Doctrine,  and  several  preachers,  including  Mr  Hog, 
were  summoned  before  the  Committee  in  April  1720.  The  con- 
ference ended  amicably ;  but  when  the  Committee  on  Purity  of 
Doctrine  handed  in  its  report,  a  set  of  propositions  extracted  from 
'The  Marrow'  "were  very  unanimously  condemned,"  says  Wodrow, 
in  spite  of  the  arguments  of  Hog  and  others.  "The  propositions 
were  so  gross  that  there  was  no  reasoning  of  any  force  against  them. 
The  book  is  discharged  to  be  recommended"  (May  18,  1720)." 

The  heresies  condemned  were,  in  fact,  sufficiently  gross,  if  they 
were  actually  in  '  The  Marrow ' ;  but  the  circumstances  were  anal- 
ogous to  the  condemnation  of  the  Five  Propositions  of  Jansenius, 
as  known  to  mankind  through  the  '  Lettres  Provinciales '  of  Pascal. 
The  Pope  settled  the  question,  "  Are  the  Propositions  really  in 
Jansenius?"  in  the  affirmative.  But  the  Assembly  had  no  Pope, 
and  the  "  Marrow  men "  had  no  Pascal.  Charles  Perrault,  after 
studying  the  Pascal -Jesuit  controversy,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  was  little  in  the  matter,  and  to  moderns  there  may 
seem  to  be  little  in  the  Marrow  dispute.     But  it  was  very  serious 


286  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY  (1720). 

to  the  disputants,  and  led  on  towards  a  secession  from  the  Kirk. 
The  condemnation  by  the  Assembly  became  "more  and  more 
stumbling  to  many  ministers  of  piety  and  learning,"  as  a  serious 
layman  wrote  to  Wodrow  (Feb.   14,   1721).^ 

In  1 72 1  the  Assembly  met  in  unfortunate  circumstances.  The 
Commissioner,  Rothes,  "is  turned  blue  and  ill-coloured,"  writes 
Wodrow,  rather  tautologically.  The  malady  of  Rothes  caused  the 
Assembly  to  break  up  early  (May  17).  A  petition  by  twelve 
ministers  against  the  Act  condemning  '  The  Marrow '  was  therefore 
remitted  to  a  Commission,  of  which  Wodrow  was  a  member.  Mr 
Boston,  in  the  remote  pastoral  parish  at  the  head  of  Ettrick,  was 
the  moving  spirit  in  the  matter  of  this  petition,  with  Mr  Hog, 
and  famous  Mr  Ralph  Erskine  of  Dunfermline,  and  Mr  Ebenezer 
Erskine  of  Portmoak.  Mr  Boston  spoke  of  "  that  black  Act " ; 
in  short,  theological  spirits  were  much  inflamed,  and  the  Assembly 
was  open  to  a  charge  of  intolerance.  In  any  community  or  Church 
there  must  be  some  authority :  if  not  in  the  Assembly,  where  was 
it?  But  to  use  the  authority  is,  of  course,  to  disoblige  some 
members  of  the  community  or  Church,  and  they  naturally  de- 
nounce the  authority  as  tyrannical. 

The  Commission,  when  it  considered  the  petition,  concluded 
that,  according  to  '  The  Marrow,'  "  believers'  sins  are  no  sin " 
(May  18,  1720).  But  the  petitioners,  in  their  preamble,  had  re- 
pudiated "as  egregious  blasphemy"  the  idea  that  "holiness  is  not 
essential  to  salvation."  That  was  an  error  which  they  abhorred, 
but  they  also  abhorred  the  other  error  of  seeking  salvation  by 
good  works.  The  General  Assembly  had  not  sufficiently  adverted 
to  that  perilous  course,  which,  we  may  think,  at  least  involved 
less  danger  to  the  community  than  the  belief  that  believers  may 
sin  at  pleasure.  '  The  Marrow '  had  quoted  Luther,  "  that  blessed 
and  famous  Reformer,"  but  the  Assembly  did  not  like  what  Knox 
calls  "  Martin's  way,"  or  did  not  like  its  concomitants.^  The 
petitioners  really  thought  —  and  this  is  the  intelligible  point  in 
their  position  —  that  "there  was  a  growing  humour  for  turning 
religion  into  a  mere  morality."  Each  party  in  the  dispute  regarded 
the  other  as  departing  from  the  exceedingly  strait  old  way  on  the 
Calvinistic  ridge  "  where  the  wind  and  water  shear."  The  debates 
between  the  petitioners  and  the  Commission  were  prolonged,  and 
Boston  says,  "  I  was  encouraged  by  the  success  of  an  encounter  with 
Principal  Hadow."  "^      In  November  the  petitioners  were  recalled, 


THE   MARROW   MEN    PROTEST.  28/ 

and  asked  to  answer  certain  written  questions.  Boston  saw  that 
"  we  were  to  lay  our  account  to  parting  with  our  brethren,"  and  the 
questions  were  received  under  protest.^^  Finally,  on  May  21,  1722, 
the  petitioners,  who  had  given  in  their  answers,  were  "  admonished 
and  rebuked"  by  the  Assembly.  There  was  a  thunderstorm,  not 
without  rain  :  "  it  made  impression  on  many,  as  Heaven's  testimony 
against  their  deed  they  were  then  about  to  do,"  but,  adds  Boston 
with  common-sense,  "  though  in  this  it  is  not  for  me  to  determine." 
He  must  have  seen  many  a  rainy  day,  with  thunder,  at  the  manse 
of  Ettrick. 

Whether  the  Assembly  was  intolerant  to  the  Marrow  men  or  not, 
the  old  persecuting  way  was  still  in  lively  force  during  the  Assembly 
of  May  1722.  Some  fifty  persons  had  attended  Mass  at  the  Duchess 
of  Gordon's  house  in  the  Canongate.  Bailie  Hawthorne  forced 
open  the  doors  and  seized  the  whole  company.  The  ladies  were 
released  on  bail ;  the  priest  and  another  man  were  imprisoned. ^^ 
It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Jacobites  "pretend  now  to  set  up  upon 
liberty  and  Whig  principles."  ^^  It  was  the  moment  of  Layer's  plot 
in  London, — a  silly  confused  affair,  later  to  be  recorded,  and  fatal 
to  Atterbury. 

The  thunderstorm  mentioned  by  Boston  is  also  noticed  by 
Wodrow  in  a  letter  to  his  wife.  He  saw  no  warning  from  an 
angry  heaven  in  the  matter,  and  says  that  the  Moderator  allowed 
that  the  task  of  rebuking  Boston  and  his  friends  was  "uneasy," 
but  "he  did  it."  In  their  protest  the  Marrow  men  expressed 
their  adhesion  to  the  National  Covenant  and  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  (which  endeared  them  to  the  men  of  the  old  leaven  in 
their  flocks),  and  to  the  Confession  of  Westminster.  They  refused 
to  submit  to  the  Act  of  1720  or  the  present  Act,  "but  will  preach 
the  truths  forbid"  by  these  Acts.  They  do  not  appear  to  have 
had  any  regard  for  the  authority  of  their  Church.^*  As  their 
protest  was  not  received  by  the  Assembly,  though  accompanied 
with  gold  coin  laid  down  by  Mr  Hog  in  accordance  with  usage, 
they  published  it.  Their  authority  for  protesting  against  the  Act 
of  Assembly  denouncing  *  The  Marrow '  was  "  the  Word  of  God  " 
(to  which  Knox  also  proposed  to  refer  if,  by  chance,  the  Kirk 
differed  from  him  in  opinion),  and  "  the  foresaid  standards  of 
doctrine  and  covenants."  It  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  a 
Church  can  exercise  any  doctrinal  authority  if  any  members  chose 
to  take  a  different  sense  of  the  meaning  of  Scripture  from   that 


288  "  NEONOMIANISM." 

which  the  Church  prefers. ^^  Herein  had  lain  the  manifest  peril 
of  the  Kirk  ever  since  the  Reformation. 

The  Assembly  passed  by  the  protestation — the  defiance  we  may 
call  it — in  silence.  Government,  both  in  the  king's  letter  and 
in  a  remonstrance  of  the  Commissioner,  had  noticed  the  dissensions 
of  the  preachers,  and,  thinking  of  Atterbury's  and  Layer's  plots,  had 
implored  the  clergy  to  avoid  an  open  breach.  Otherwise  the 
Secession  might  have  occurred  ten  years  before  it  actually  happened, 
though  it  is  not  easy  to  see  in  what  respect  it  could  have  aided 
the  cause  of  King  James.  The  dissenters  would,  in  no  case,  have 
donned  the  white  cockade  while  James  remained  a  Catholic. 

The  general  result  of  '  The  Marrow '  controversy  was  that 
"  several  ministers  who  were  cordially  attached  to  the  constitution 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  had  their  confidence  in  all  national 
Churches  shaken,"  and  two  began  to  show  a  preference  for  the 
Independent  model  over  Presbytery.  Wodrow  writes  that  "  the 
serious  part  of  this  Church  are  in  greater  hazard  of  turning  to  the 
excesses  of  the  Independents  than  many  are  aware  of."  "The 
Cromwellian  Ghost"  was  doing  its  work;  the  ideas  of  "those 
erroneous  parties,  the  Sectaries,"  as  they  were  called  in  Cromwell's 
time,  were  being  revived.  Wodrow  himself  (1727)  was  "almost 
weary  of  the  chicane  and  dififerent  views  we  have,"  as  Baillie,  long 
before,  had  been  disgusted  by  the  "  niggie  naggies "  of  the  Pro- 
testers, the  godly,  the  left  wing  of  the  Covenant. ^^ 

If  men  of  learning  like  Wodrow,  and  the  majority  of  the  ministers, 
conceived  that  the  minority,  the  Marrow  men,  were  verging  on  the 
Independent  error,  the  Marrow  men  looked  on  the  majority  as 
"  Neonomians."  This  is  the  view  of  an  eminent  modern  authority, 
Professor  MacEwen  of  the  United  Free  Church.  Whether  or  not 
that  Church  is  the  spiritual  descendant  and  heir  of  the  Marrow 
party,  and  of  the  Secession,  it  might  be  dangerous  to  conjecture, 
as  the  theme  is  infinitely  ramified  and  tempers  are  fiery.  At  all 
events,  Professor  MacEwen  says  that  the  Marrow  doctrines,  as 
preached  by  Boston  and  Hog,  were  "  faced  by  an  unwillingness 
to  accept  those  doctrines  in  their  completeness,  which  earned  the 
name  of  Neonomianism.  A  strange  school  this  latter  was — predes- 
tinarian  and  forensic  in  its  theory,  yet  prone  to  vague  moralising, 
and  disposed  to  tolerate  anything  but  evangelical  earnestness.  Every 
man  was  "saved"  or  "lost";  but  salvation  was  secondary  to  decent 
behaviour,  and  no  man  had  a  right  to  meddle  with  another  man's 


SALVATION    VERSUS  DECENT   BEHAVIOUR.  289 

opinions.     It  was  enough  to  be  willing  to  "accept  the  Confession 
of  Faith."  17 

To  accept  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  to  accept  a  good  deal ! 
Wodrow  would  have  been  much  surprised  had  he  learned  that  he 
thought  "no  man  had  any  right  to  meddle  with  another  man's 
opinions."  The  Kirk,  generally,  was  still  hostile  to  toleration,  and 
meddled  with  the  opinions  of  its  children  and  others  very  frequently. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  community,  salvation  is  "secondary 
to  decent  behaviour."  If  all  men  and  women  behaved  indecently, 
the  fact  that  they  were  all  "  saved  "  (even  if  it  could  be  scientifically 
verified)  would  be  a  poor  consolation  for  universal  impropriety. 
If  to  hold  sensible  opinions  is  to  earn  the  nickname  of  Neonomian, 
we  must  remember  that  the  good  men  who  thought  decent  behaviour 
secondary  to  salvation  also  earned  the  name  of  Antinomian.  Parties 
will  inflict  sobriquets  on  their  adversaries,  and  each  side  would 
have  eagerly  repudiated  the  account  of  its  tenets  which  its  oppon- 
ents gave.  The  evangelical  Marrow  men  would  never  have  ad- 
mitted that,  if  you  are  saved,  the  indecency  of  your  behaviour  is 
a  quite  secondary  consideration.  The  anti- Marrow  men  would 
have  protested  that  they  were  as  good  Calvinists  as  Calvin,  and 
that  they  denounced  the  blasphemous  doctrine  of  toleration  and 
of  not  meddling  with  other  men's  opinions.  The  fault  of  both 
parties  was  a  passion  for  what  Wodrow  calls  "chicane." 

The  various  Presbyteries  of  the  country  seem  to  have  been  more 
tenaciously  orthodox,  as  against  'The  Marrow,'  than  the  General 
Assembly,  and  young  postulants  of  holy  orders  were  severely 
questioned  as  to  their  private  opinions.  But  'The  Marrow'  was 
only  one  cause  of  the  coming  Secession,  though  Marrow  men  were 
active  in  that  disruption.  Another  cause  af  uneasiness  in  the 
Church  was  the  Oath  of  Abjuration  imposed  upon  ministers. 
Deputies  from  the  General  Assembly  visited  London  in  1 7 1 7 
to  express  their  grievances  in  this  and  other  matters,  especially 
Patronage, — practically  the  greatest,  or  at  least  the  most  obvious 
and  popular,  cause  of  suffering.  They  were  well  received  by 
George  I.,  the  Prince  of  Wales,  Roxburghe,  Jerviswoode,  and  other 
men  in  power,  and  mitigations  were  promised.  One  of  their 
grievances  was  the  toleration  of  Episcopalians,  who,  for  their  part, 
complained  of  being  persecuted.^^  In  17 18  it  was  intended  to 
modify  the  Oath  of  Abjuration,  and  Wodrow  expressed  his  ideas 
to  Colonel  Erskine  and  to  the  Earl  of  Ross.     Wodrow  thought  that 

VOL.  IV.  T 


290  CHICANE   ABOUT   ABJURATION. 

the  affair  should  be  left  alone,  though  he  himself  scrupled  at  the 
oath  as  it  had  stood.  The  new  oath,  with  no  reference  to  the  Acts 
establishing  the  hierarchy  in  England,  would  satisfy  many.  But 
many  others  would  be  as  dissatisfied  as  ever,  for  to  swear  allegiance 
to  the  king  was,  so  to  speak,  to  condone  existing  laws,  and  Patron- 
age, and  Toleration,  and  the  existence  of  Bishops.  No  real 
Protestant,  Wodrow  thought,  could  hesitate  as  to  King  George's 
right  to  rule.  But  to  promise  by  oath  to  assist  the  rule  of  a  king 
under  whom  one  supposes  that  "iniquitous  laws  are  established," 
such  as  toleration,  was  a  very  different  affair.  Did  these  victims 
of  "chicane"  and  "niggie  naggie"  not  pray  for  King  George? 
Apparently  they  did, — Wodrow  says  that  they  did, — so  their  con- 
sciences drew  the  line  at  an  almost  invisible  point.  The  point 
was,  Scripture  bids  us  pray  for  the  king,  and  to  do  that  is  not 
to  "  homologate  sinful  laws."  But  to  pray  for  a  king  is  to  assist  the 
king,  and  the  objection  to  the  oath  is  that  "it  is  just  a  solemn 
promise  of  assisting  the  king." 

There  was,  in  fact,  no  use  in  enforcing  the  oath.  Every 
Protestant  preacher  would  assist  any  Protestant  king  as  against 
any  Popish  Pretender.  But  the  scruples  explained,  or  rather 
stated,  by  Wodrow  illustrate  the  condition  of  the  Presbyterian 
conscience,  or  the  conscience  of  some  Presbyterians,  at  this  period. 
In  fact,  as  Wodrow  says,  some  preachers  were  afraid  of  "giving 
offence  to  their  people,"  who  thought  that  the  oath  "homologated 
the  Union,"  while  the  Union  was  a  breach  of  the  Covenant.^^  The 
Earl  of  Ross,  one  of  the  Scottish  representative  peers,  said  that 
the  ministers,  if  they  will  "  run  from  one  excess  to  another,"  would 
"  discourage  their  best  friends,  who  cannot  hold  up  their  faces  to 
appear  for  unreasonable  notions."  The  new  Act  as  to  the  form  of 
the  oath  was  made  as  inoffensive  as  possible,  and  many  ministers 
who  had  not  been  "clear,"  as  the  phrase  went,  now  swore  allegiance. 
Boston  says  that  "there  remained  but  a  few  recusants,  among  whom, 
through  the  divine  favour,  were  my  two  friends  and  I  still."  The 
recusants  "were  treated  as  aliens  by  their  brethren."  Orders  were 
issued  to  prosecute  the  recalcitrants  in  January  1720:  Mr  Boston, 
however,  continued  to  be  minister  of  Ettrick. 

The  Abjuration  ceased  to  be  a  great  cause  of  division  among  the 
ministers  after  the  oath,  itself  superfluous  and  irritating,  was  modi- 
fied in  1 7 19.  Meanwhile  the  heresies  of  Professor  Simson  were 
allowed  to  lie  dormant  for  a  few  years,  only  to  break  forth  with 


PATRONAGE.  29 1 

greater  and  more  mischievous  vigour  in  1727.  When  we  remember 
that  the  Professor  lectured  in  Latin, — an  indication  of  more  learning 
than  is  now  universal  among  students  of  divinity, — the  difficulty  of 
pinning  him  down  to  a  distinctly  heretical  opinion  is  obvious. 

But  what  chiefly  wrung  the  hearts  of  earnest  thinkers  was  that 
old  Protean  sorrow  of  many  shapes,  Patronage.  "  The  reimposi- 
tion  of  that  burden  "  under  Queen  Anne  was  really  a  mischievous 
trick  of  the  Jacobites,  who  had  the  greatest  genius  for  what  they 
called  "teasing  the  ministers."  "It  hath  been  the  greatest  crush 
could  have  been  given  to  the  ministry  of  this  church,"  Wodrow 
wrote  to  Colonel  Erskine  in  171 7,  when  there  was  some  prospect 
of  the  mitigation  of  the  Act.  Patrons,  often  Jacobites,  and  even 
if  not  Jacobites  fond  of  teasing,  used  in  many  places  "  to  mock 
God  and  man  with  sham  presentations,  and  keeping  vacancies 
empty  unless  it  happened  that  some  one  or  other  got  into  their 
good  graces  who  was  acceptable  to  the  people  and  Presbytery." 
The  parish  of  Ettrick  had  no  minister  for  four  years  previous  to 
Boston's  induction.  Wodrow,  as  early  as  17 17,  foresaw  "an  open 
breach  among  ourselves "  on  this  head.  The  stipend,  Wodrow 
remarked,  really  came  in  the  long-run  "from  the  pockets  of  the 
common  people,"  who  felt  injured  at  not  being  able  to  select  their 
preferred  candidate.  The  patrons  who  were  not  mischievous  for 
the  sake  of  mischief,  were  anxious  to  obtain  political  influence  in 
the  General  Assembly — for  example,  to  wreak  their  grudge  on 
Argyll,  after  the  Rising  of  171 5,  by  inducing  the  Assembly  to 
include  Cadogan's  name  as  well  as  the  Duke's  in  the  vote  of 
congratulation.  "This  is  the  bait  our  great  men  leap  at,  and 
stoop  so  low  as  to  mix  themselves  in  some  of  the  smallest  matters 
that  come  before  Church  judicatories.  This  makes  them  raise  such 
a  cry  against  populur  calls"  to  vacant  parishes.  The  result  was 
that  Presbyterial  government  seemed  likely  "to  fall  unlamented," 
dragging  down  with  it  "  the  Kingdom  of  Christ."  These,  it  must 
be  remembered,  are  the  opinions  of  an  anti-Marrow  man,  and  there- 
fore, Marrow  men  would  say,  of  one  so  lost  as  to  hold  salvation 
secondary  to  decent  behaviour.  Wodrow's  remedies  were  "that 
patronage  should  be  abolished,  and  that  the  proper  callers  be 
determined  by  law."  Ministers  selected  by  patrons  would  certainly 
be  "  corrupt  and  despised," — indeed  they  were  despised  already,  both 
by  the  patrons  and,  when  the  presentee  was  unacceptable  to  the 
flock,  by  the  people. 


292  PATRONAGE. 

The  law  did  not  permit  any  patron  to  choose  the  lawyers,  doctors, 
and  tailors  for  the  community ;  why,  then,  were  they  to  choose  the 
preachers  ?  As  time  went  on  the  rhore  popular  ministers  abstained 
from  attending  at  the  reception  of  an  unpopular  presentee  or 
opposed  him,  and  the  Assembly's  Commission  sent  some  of  their 
own  members  to  fill  up  the  number  and  do  what  w-as  needful  for 
the  unpopular  presentee  of  the  heritors  or  magistrates.  This  was 
called  "a  riding  committee."  Up  to  this  date,  according  to  an 
eminent  authority,  the  Rev.  Sir  Henry  Moncreifif  Wellwood,  Bart, 
Doctor  of  Divinity,  the  General  Assemblies  had  behaved  very  well 
"  in  providing  for  the  usefulness  and  respectability  of  the  Church, 
and  for  the  peace  and  security  of  the  country."  Since  the  restora- 
tion of  patronage  in  17 12,  "the  proceedings  of  the  Church  courts 
were  founded  more  on  the  calls  than  the  presentations  ;  .  .  .  vacant 
parishes  appear  to  have  been  very  generally  filled  up  by  the  presby- 
teries, either  with  the  tacit  consent  of  the  patrons,  even  when  they 
lodged  their  presentations,  or  jure  devoluto,  when  they  did  not 
present  at  all."  ^^  The  power  of  a  patron  to  keep  a  parish  vacant, 
either  by  appointing  a  Non-Juror,  or  a  preacher  who  had  a  better 
living  and  would  not  accept,  or  in  other  annoying  ways,  was 
removed  by  an  Act  of  Parliament  of  17 19,  when  these  methods 
were  made  of  no  effect.  The  result  was  a  few  years  of  comparative 
calm  in  the  Kirk,  and  our  author  avers  that  "  what  was  afterwards 
called  the  divine  right  of  the  people  to  elect  was  not  even  then 
brought  forward."  ^^ 

After  1725,  when  the  Assembly's  Commission  overruled  the  local 
Synod  of  Aberdeen  and  settled  the  candidate  of  the  Magistrates, 
not  of  the  majority  of  Elders,^^ — a  settlement  upheld,  though  not 
approved, — passions  became  more  lively.  In  the  Assembly  of  1726 
the  divine  right  of  the  people  was  proclaimed  by  Mr  Gabriel 
Wilson.  "  He  said  warmly  that  the  Commission  had  betrayed 
the  rights  of  the  Christian  people."  ^^ 

Leaving  the  controversy  for  the  moment  at  this  point,  we  naturally 
ask  why  a  Whig  administration  did  not  abolish  a  privilege  so  odious 
as  patronage  was  to  serious  concerned  Christians  ?  Compensation 
might  have  been  given  for  such  infinitesimal  loss  as  patrons  would 
have  sustained,  and  the  Government  had  no  sympathy  with  Jacobite 
patrons.  Why,  again,  did  the  General  Assembly  tend  to  back 
presentations  which  were  opposed,  rather  than  otherwise?  Perhaps 
we  may  conjecture  that  the  Scottish  members  of  Parliament  were 


MODERATES   AND   MARROW   MEN.  293 

often  patrons  themselves,  and  that  EngHsh  members  were  afraid 
of  losing  their  own  more  valuable  privileges.  Again,  neither  the 
Government  nor  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  liked  the  class  of 
preachers  whom  the  populace  would  have  selected.  Patriotism 
and  hatred  of  the  Union,  with  the  love  of  long  sermons  about 
Grace  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  'The  Marrow,' — 
sermons  mainly  doctrinal,  with  not  much  about  decency  of  be- 
haviour,— were  what  the  parochial  patriots  and  dialecticians  seem 
to  have  enjoyed.  Consequently  they  would  vote  for  preachers 
like  Hog,  Wilson,  Boston,  and  Ralph  and  Ebenezer  Erskine,  who 
would  not  take  the  Oath  of  Abjuration,  and  would  discourse  eter- 
nally on  Man's  Fourfold  State,  with  unction  of  'The  Marrow' 
variety. 

These  were  honourable,  scrupulous,  laborious  men,  highly  con- 
scientious,  and  devoted   to  their  duties  as   they  conceived  them. 
Boston's  scruples  about  his  "  Call "  fill  many  pages  of  his  Memoirs, 
in  which,  if  his  style  is  "sometimes  Shakespearian"  (as  the  Rev. 
Dr  Whyte  declares),   that  quality  is   not  conspicuous  to  the  lay 
intelligence.      Still,   if  we  do   not   quite   sympathise  with   Boston 
and  his  private  written  covenants  between  "  I,  Mr  Thomas  Boston, 
Minister  of  God's  Word  at  Simprin,"  and  Omnipotence,   we  do 
see  that  he  lived  a  hard  and  toilsome  life,  "as  ever  in  his  great 
taskmaster's  eye."     The  "  liberal  shepherds  "  of  Ettrick  could  not 
but  be  affected  by  his  devotion :   they  also  loved   sermons  that 
ranged  the  mountain-peaks  of  foreknowledge  and  freewill,  and  they 
"  tholed  "  the  "  exercises  "  and  catechisings.      But  human   nature 
is  so  constituted  that  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  were  neither 
Marrow   men,    nor    Non-Abjurationists,   nor    specially   devoted   to 
speculative  theological  chicane,  nor,  doubtless,  such  very  strenuous 
wrestlers  in  prayer  as  some  of  the  "  Evangelical "  leaders.     They 
were  not  likely  to  begin  praying  in  church  and  go  on  praying  till 
it  was  time  to  "  skail "  and  go  home,  in  a  kind  of  holy  absence  of 
mind,  as  one  minister  is  said  to  have  done.     They  did  not  practise 
the   popular  whining  delivery  called   "the  sough," — "  Gie   me   the 
sough,  and   I   dinna  care  for  the  sense,"  said  an  amateur.     They 
therefore  moved  away  from  the  extreme  left  with  its  obsolete  Coven- 
anting principles :    they  were  not  anxious  to  support  the  calls  of 
such  men  as  against  the  presentees  of  patrons. 

Mr  Ralph  Erskine,  born  in   1685,  was  an  example  of  the  anti- 
Abjurationists,  and  was  a  poet.     In  an  ode  on  the  coronation  of 


294  MR   RALPH   ERSKINE. 

George  I.  he  sang  to  the  following  effect  (and  to  no  other  effect, 
his  Majesty  caring  little  for  the  English  Muse) : — 

"  Redeem  us,  Sire,  from  things  our  country  loathes, 
Subverting  patronages,  ranting  oaths, 
Such  was  the  woful  dubious  Abjuration, 
Which  gave  the  clergy  ground  for  speculation, 
Though  all  could  freely,  without  laws  to  urge, 
Abjure  the  Papish  James,  and  swear  to  George." 

This  is  admirable,  but — would  they  "swear  to  George"?^*  As 
Mr  Erskine  prayed  that  the  descendants  of  George  I.  might  sway 
the  British  sceptre 

"Till  Nature  fail,  unhinge  the  ponderous  globe," 

his  loyalty  is  as  pre-eminent  as  his  scruples  are  respectable.  He 
described  the  White  Rose  cause  as  that  of  "black  and  bloody 
Popery."  In  the  preface  to  his  '  Gospel  Sonnets '  Mr  Erskine 
averred  that  '  The  Marrow '  doctrines  were  "  the  good  old  way  " ; 
whereas  the  Assembly  was  seriously  convinced  that  theirs  was 
"the  good  old  way,"  for  their  way  "required  faith,  repentance, 
and  sincere  obedience  as  the  conditions  of  salvation."  Mr  Erskine 
was  "opposed  to  this  dangerous  though  specious  and  palatable 
scheme." 2^  But  his  own  scheme,  though  "palatable,"  especially 
to  persons  disinclined  to  "  faith,  repentance,  and  sincere  obedi- 
ence," was  also  more  or  less  "dangerous." 

Before  this  quarrel  between  parties,  which  had  each  a  good  deal 
to  say  against  the  other,  died  out,  "  that  unhappy  Mr  Simson,"  the 
dubiously  orthodox  Professor  lightly  handled  in  171 7,  again  caused 
discord  of  a  far-reaching  sort.  He  was  accused,  in  short,  of  contro- 
verting "  or  minimising  the  doctrines  of  the  Creed  of  St  Athanasius." 
Previously  he  "  tended  to  attribute  too  much  to  the  power  of  human 
nature."  ^^  Now  he  tended  to  attribute  too  little  to  the  Divinity  of 
the  Son  ;  in  fact,  he  was  suspected  of  Arian  positions — those  of 
Professor  Whiston  of  Cambridge  and  Dr  Samuel  Clarke.  In  1726 
the  eminently  devout  Lord  Grange,  Mar's  brother,  wrote  to  Wodrow, 
in  strict  confidence,  that,  as  the  fatna  ran,  "  Your  neighbour.  Pro- 
fessor Simson,  has  discovered  himself  to  be  for  Professor  Clarke  of 
St  James's  scheme."  The  Presbytery  of  Kirkcaldy,  or  some  of  its 
members,  had  already  endeavoured  to  stand  in  the  breach — at 
least,    the   Kirk-session    of  Portmoak  (March    1725)   had  invited 


MR   SIMSON    AGAIN    (1726).  295 

the  Presbytery  of  Kirkcaldy,  in  the  name  of  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant,  and  on  other  considerations,  to  remember  St 
Athanasius  and  protest  against  the  Arian  heresy,  "  lately  raked 
out  of  hell."  27 

Mr  Ebenezer  Erskine  was  the  moving  spirit  at  Portmoak,  of 
which  parish  he  was  minister,  and  we  see  that  he  was  in  the  field 
before  Lord  Grange  aroused  Wodrow,  who,  to  be  sure,  had  heard 
of  Mr  Simson's  heresies  before  Lord  Grange  wrote  to  him.  Wodrow 
also  knew  that  Mr  Simson  denied  the  reports  spread  by  the  men 
who  attended  his  lecture,  and  for  two  years  he  had  censured  Dr 
Clarke's,  and  even  Sir  Isaac  Newton's,  view,  "which  he  takes  to 
be  the  foundation  of  all  the  Doctor's  mistakes."  It  is  always 
unlucky  for  scientific  men  to  mix  themselves  up  in  theological 
discussions. 

Mr  Simson  was  in  bad  health, — he  could  talk  of  nothing  but 
the  Council  of  Nice  (let  us  pity  Mrs  Simson), — and  it  was  believed 
that  his  brain  was  affected.  Consequently  the  local  Presbytery 
had  not  summoned  the  Professor  of  Divinity  before  them  to  give 
an  account  of  himself.  When  the  Assembly  of  May  1726  met, 
five  Presbyteries,  including  that  of  Kirkcaldy,  opened  the  cry 
against  Mr  Simson,  and  a  Committee,  including  Lord  Grange, 
was  to  inquire  into  the  views  of  Mr  Simson's  own  Presbytery, 
that  of  Glasgow.  "  Where  it  will  land,  the  Lord  himself  direct." 
The  only  comfort  was  *'  the  king's  forward  prosecution  of  the 
Papists," — always  the  whipping-boys  of  Presbyterian  justice.  Mean- 
while the  Presbytery  of  Glasgow  was  ordered  to  go  on  with  the 
inquiry  into  the  Simsonian  theories,  aided  by  a  Committee  of  their 
own  selection.  "The  consequences  are  very  awful  and  doubtful," 
writes  Wodrow.  Mr  Simson  himself  was  said  to  regard  these  pro- 
ceedings as  inquisitorial,  but,  says  Wodrow,  "  if  a  Church  has  not 
power  to  inquire  into  the  doctrine  of  her  teachers,  I  know  no  power 
she  has."  Wodrow  himself,  and  even  Lord  Grange,  with  the 
Committee,  as  it  seemed  to  Mr  Simson,  "  declared  against  inquir- 
ing into  Mr  Simson's  private  sentiments  "  :  this  was  not  the  view  of 
the  Presbytery,  which  pressed  its  intimate  inquiries.  The  inquiry 
was  based  on  what  the  Professor's  students  said,  and  many  of  them 
were  "raw  young  lads,"  who  probably  understood  little  about  what 
he  had  told  them.  It  is  curious  that  they  do  not  seem  to  have 
made  notes  in  lecture :  at  one  time  the  students  at  St  Andrews 
were   formally    forbidden    to    take   long    notes.      Obviously    Latin 


296  THE   SQUADRONE   IN    THEOLOGY. 

lectures,  reported  on  merely  from  memory  after  a  lapse  of  time, 
were  not  a  basis  of  sound  evidence.  To  one  student  who  urged 
objections  the  Professor  replied  :  "  These  terms  are  very  impertinent, 
and  should  not  be  used  in  speaking  of  sacred  subjects."  Wodrow 
himself  wavered  about  "the  inquisitorial  method,"  appearing  rather 
to  approve  of  it,  but  placing  his  main  confidence  in  Lord  Grange,  a 
person  interested  in  his  antiquarian  collections. 

It  is  curious  to  note  how  secular  politics  were  intertwined  with 
controversies  on  Christian  mysteries.  In  August  1733  Lord  Grange 
wrote  a  brief  account  of  his  own  political  career,  in  a  letter  to  Erskine 
of  Pittodry.  We  learn  that  the  old  feud  of  the  Squadrone  and 
Argyll's  party,  the  Argathelians,  was  mixed  up  with  the  Athanasian 
controversy.  The  Squadrone  being  in  power,  the  Argyll  faction 
"were  particularly  run  down  in  the  Church  judicatories,  where  most 
of  the  clergy,  with  the  usual  honesty  of  clergymen,  ran  headlong 
against  the  weak,  and  servilely  crouched  to  the  prevailing."  As 
"the  prevailing"  backed  Mr  Simson,  "a  Court  minister,"  the  Argyll 
faction  backed  his  persevering  assailants.  Lord  Grange  says  that 
he  was  neither  of  the  Argathelians  nor  of  the  Squadrone,  but,  as 
a  member  of  the  Assembly,  "was  against  Simson."  This  procured 
for  him  the  promise  of  Argyll  and  Islay  that  "  when  they  came  to 
power  I  should  be  chiefly  regarded,"  and  "  I  ran  their  errands  and 
fought  their  battles  in  Scotland."  It  is  not  clear  to  what  extent 
Grange's  opposition  to  Arianism  arose  from  his  interested  attach- 
ment to  Argyllism.^^  Meanwhile  Lord  Grange  was  having  his 
termagant  wife  kidnapped  by  Lovat's  men  and  deposited  in 
St  Kilda. 

Still,  in  March  1727,  the  luckless  Simson  was  trying  to  find  out 
what  charges  were  to  be  brought  against  him,  and  was  said  to  have 
remarked  that  the  proceedings  were  "an  unfruitful  work  of  dark- 
ness." His  case  was  to  come  before  the  Assembly  in  May.  By 
the  end  of  March  he  did  not  know  what  that  case  might  be,  and 
his  health  was  seriously  affected.  At  last  the  Assembly  met  in 
May,  and  the  Moderator  prayed  for,  and  preached  in  favour  of, 
"the  peace  of  Jerusalem."  They  could  have  "no  assistance  of 
reason  "  in  the  case  before  them ;  "  the  subject  was  so  delicate  and 
tender  that  he  trembled  to  speak  of  it."  In  spite  of  the  very 
defective  nature  of  the  evidence,  already  explained,  a  large  majority 
found  the  chief  article  of  heresy  proved  against  the  Professor.  No 
words  can  give  any  idea  of  the  confusion  in  a  large  meeting,  where 


SIMSON   SUSPENDED  (1728).  297 

quillets  of  the  rules  of  procedure  were  mixed  with  reasonings  on 
matters  which,  as  the  ex-Moderator  confessed,  are  beyond  the  range 
of  human  reason.  Was  Simson  to  be  suspended  as  a  Professor, 
or  deposed,  with  loss  of  place  and  salary?  That  was  really  the 
point  on  which  parties  were  fighting.  He  was  suspended  for  a 
year,  when  the  whole  affair  was  to  come  up  again. ^^  Lord  Grange 
told  Wodrow  that  there  was  danger  lest  Simson's  theories  should 
appear,  in  England,  to  be  opposed  only  by  "odd  out-of-the-way 
people,"  such  as  the  founders  of  the  now  approaching  schism.  In 
1728  Mr  Simson  "purged  himself  from  all  heresy,  and  answered 
questions  "  very  orthodoxly,  and  as  they  would  have  him."  But  if 
the  Assembly  now  purged  Mr  Simson,  as  a  cleanly  orthodox  man, 
and  restored  him  to  his  chair,  "  there  will  be  a  breach,"  said 
Wodrow. 

One  fanatic  proposed  that  the  Higher  Excommunication  should 
be  levelled  at  the  Professor, — "this  might  be  blessed  to  him."  And 
all  this  on  the  strength  of  witnesses  to  a  conversation  with  Simson 
in  the  open  air,  witnesses  giving  evidence  more  than  a  year  after 
the  talk  !  The  Assembly  remitted  the  case  of  Simson,  who,  if  he 
had  erred,  had  recanted,  to  the  vote  of  the  Presbyteries.  The 
majority  were  for  deposing  the  Professor ;  but  he  was  merely  sus- 
pended from  preaching  and  teaching,  "until  another  Assembly 
shall  think  fit  to  take  off  this  sentence."  Only  Mr  Boston  of 
Ettrick  verbally  dissented.®^  The  other  "  Marrow  brethren,"  like 
the  Erskines,  thought  that  they  were  sinfully  negligent  in  not  making 
more  formal  opposition, ^^  and  when  horror  of  patronage  was  added 
to  distress  that  Mr  Simson  was  not  deprived  of  his  salary,  the 
match  was  set  to  the  powder  and  the  schism  broke  forth. 

Patronage  now  came  again  to  the  front,  and  the  Assembly  forced 
presentees  on  reluctant  parishes  and  Presbyteries  by  their  "riding 
committees."  The  ministers  in  a  Presbytery  who  happened  to 
dislike  the  presentee,  lodged  long  and  verbose  protests  with  the 
Assembly,  which  in  1730  forbade  these  documents  to  be  entered 
in  their  records.  In  December  1730  Wodrow  wrote  to  Lord 
Grange,  "  We  have  been  so  obsequious  already  to  presentations,  and 
done  more  than  perhaps  the  law  requires."  ^^  gyf  j^  September 
he  had  remarked,  "The  Assembly  had  nothing  of  any  importance 
before  them.  We  are  year  after  year  vexed  with  litigious  debates 
with  patrons  and  parties  as  to  settling  of  ministers, — matter  of  very 
great  trouble  to  all  our  judicatories,  greater  and  lesser,  and  I  am 


298  EBENEZER   ERSKINE   PROTESTS  (1732). 

afraid  will  have  very  ill  effects  on  serious  religion."  ^^  The  good 
historian  was  passing  weary  of  debates  and  quibbles,  and  soon  his 
letters  cease.  Soon  he  had  "gone  home  and  ta'en  his  wages," — a 
man  void  of  offence,  insatiably  eager  for  knowledge,  simple,  moder- 
ate, laborious,  and,  considering  the  strength  of  his  feelings,  a  candid 
as  well  as  an  industrious  historian. 

Many  presentations  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Church  herself, 
which  presented  when  the  patron,  for  any  reason,  did  not.  Some- 
times a  Presbytery  selected  a  preacher,  sometimes  they  allowed  the 
congregation  to  do  so.  In  1731  there  was  a  proposal  or  "over- 
ture" before  the  Assembly  that,  when  nobody  was  presented,  the 
Elders,  and  Pw/^^/aw/ landholders,  called  "heritors,"  should  elect, 
or,  in  Royal  Burghs,  the  Elders  and  Magistrates  :  their  choice  was 
to  be  laid  before  the  congregation,  and,  if  they  disapproved,  the 
Presbytery  was  to  decide.  By  the  terms  of  what  is  called  "the 
Barrier  Act "  of  the  Assembly,  this  proposal  was  laid  before  all  the 
Presbyteries,  for  ratification  or  rejection,  before  being  embodied  in 
an  Act  of  the  Assembly.  Thirty- one  Presbyteries  rejected  this 
scheme ;  six  approved,  twelve  approved  conditionally,  eighteen  sent 
no  reply, — thirty-six  had  not  actually  expressed  an  unconditional 
negative,  as  against  thirty-one  who  had.  But  the  Assembly  of  1732 
calmly  passed  an  Act  embodying  the  scheme,  and  to  the  Assembly, 
on  May  16,  1732,  'twas  Mr  Ebenezer  Erskine  who  spoke.  He  and 
others  had  protested  against  the  Act  (Scottish  History  is  a  long 
series  of  protests  !),  but  their  document  had  not  been  received.  Mr 
Erskine  towered  to  the  old  heights  of  Knox  and  Melville, — "  Christ, 
the  exalted  King  of  Zion,"  was  the  only  source  of  ecclesiastical 
authority.  He  had  given  to  mortals  His  Word.  On  what  part  of 
the  Word  the  Act  of  the  Assembly  was  founded  Mr  Erskine  con- 
fessed that  he  did  not  know.  Indeed  it  would  be  hard  to  find  in 
Holy  Scripture  any  precise  statement  as  to  the  right  of  Presbyteries 
to  decide  on  differences  between  congregational  "  calls "  on  one 
side,  and  those  of  Protestant  heritors  combined  with  Elders  on 
the  other.  Said  Mr  Erskine,  "The  privilege  of  His  little  ones  is 
conferred,"  by  the  Act,  "  upon  heritors  and  the  great  ones  of  the 
world."  3* 

At  Stirling,  in  a  sermon  preached  on  June  4,  1732,  Mr  Erskine 
again  expressed  himself,  as  also  on  October  10  at  Perth,  "with 
great  freedom,"  says  his  biographer;  "with  inflammatory  declama- 
tion," says  the  Rev.  Sir  Henry  MoncrcifF  Wellwood,   I). I).,   Bart. 


REBUKED   AND    PROTESTS   (1732).  299 

"  Professed  Presbyterians,"  said  the  preacher,  who  thrust  a  minister 
on  a  reluctant  congregation,  "were  guilty  of  an  attempt  to  jostle 
Christ  out  of  His  government."  He  used  phrases  which  were 
certainly  capable  of  being  interpreted  as  unpleasant  reflections  on 
the  majority  of  the  General  Assembly,  drawing  a  parallel  between 
them  and  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Persons  of  common-sense 
would  have  let  the  speech  pass  unchallenged,  but  the  Synod  of 
Perth,  which  had  appointed  Mr  Erskine  as  Moderator,  snuffed  the 
battle  from  afar,  debated  vehemently  for  three  days,  and  then 
censured  some  of  his  phrases  as  tending  to  provide  a  breach  of  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  Then,  as  was  to  be  expected,  the  wonted 
protests  were  put  in  :  alas,  it  is  hard  for  clerical  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity  !  Mr  Erskine  had  spoken  under  considerable  pro- 
vocation, offered  to  his  brother,  Mr  Ralph  Erskine,  in  the  matter  of 
his  resistance  to  the  entry  of  a  new  minister  at  Kinross.  At  the 
meeting  of  his  Synod,  in  April  1733,  he  would  not  apologise,  but 
spoke,  in  language  rather  exalted,  about  "  the  utterance  given  by 
the  Lord  to  me  at  Perth,"  wherein  "  I  delivered  His  mind,  .  .  . 
and  therefore  I  dare  not  retract  the  least  part  of  that  testimony." 

Mr  Erskine  may  have  believed  that  he  preached  under  the 
influence  of  direct  inspiration,  or  he  may  merely  have  held  that 
his  inference  as  to  how  the  Founder  of  Christianity  would  have 
viewed  the  Act  of  Assembly  was  a  correct  inference ;  but  there 
was  no  means  of  verifying  the  truth  of  an  impression  which  was 
not  shared  by  his  opponents.  They,  in  their  turn,  might  say 
disagreeable  things  about  him  from  the  pulpit,  and  declare  that 
"the  utterance "  was  "given  to  them."  Everything  is  so  subjective 
in  such  matters.  Sir  Henry  Moncreiff  Wellwood  thinks  that  there 
was  nothing  very  remarkable  in  Mr  Erskine's  impugned  sermons, 
which  might  have  been  quietly  passed  over.  Mr  Struthers  deems 
that  "their  piety  and  noble  spirit  of  independence"  make  them 
"admirable."  The  General  Assembly  of  1733,  however,  voted 
that  Mr  Erskine  "  had  vented  expressions  "  which  were  "  offensive," 
and  that  he  should  be  rebuked.  Mr  Erskine  listened  to  the  rebuke, 
and,  it  is  needless  to  add,  put  in  a  protest.  Three  clerical  friends 
followed  his  example,  and,  even  now,  all  might  have  passed  off 
quietly.  The  protest  was  lying  on  the  table,  when  some  unknown 
agency,  possibly  the  law  of  gravitation,  "as  Providence  ordained," 
says  Professor  MacEwen,^^  caused  the  document  to  drop  off  and 
fall  to  the  floor  :    some   one   picked   it   up,   looked   upon   it,   and 


300  SECESSION. 

proclaimed  aloud  that  it  was  an  insult  to  the  House.  Mr  Erskine 
stated,  in  his  protest,  that  his  rebuke  implied  that  he  had  "  departed 
from  the  Word  of  God,"  whereas  to  others  it  only  seemed  that 
some  of  his  expressions  had  been  described  as  "offensive."  The 
Assembly  found  that  the  protest  of  the  Four  must  be  apologised 
for  in  August,  otherwise  they  would  be  suspended,  like  Mr  Simson ; 
while,  if  they  acted  contrary  to  their  suspension,  the  Commission 
of  the  Assembly  would  proceed  to  a  higher  censure.  In  August 
the  Four  would  not  say  that  they  were  sorry,  and  suspended  they 
were ;  so  they  put  in  protests,  as  did  their  ruling  elders.  Any  one 
who,  during  their  suspension,  did  any  part  of  their  pastoral  work, 
"  shall  be  held  as  a  violent  intruder,"  which  appears  to  give  a 
sufficient  hint  as  to  how  he  was  likely  to  be  treated. 

In  November  the  question  of  the  "  higher  censure "  came  up, 
and  the  Commission  of  Assembly  now  tried  to  build  a  bridge  of 
gold  whereby  the  dauntless  Four  might  return  to  the  fold  in  peace. 
They  were  offered  these  terms  :  If  the  next  General  Assembly  shall 
declare  that  it  was  not  meant  by  the  Act  of  the  last  General 
Assembly  "  to  deny  or  take  away  the  privilege  and  duty  of  ministers 
to  testify  against  defections,  then  we  shall  be  at  liberty  and  willing 
to  withdraw  our  protest  against  the  said  Act  of  Assembly,  and, 
particularly,  we  reserve  to  ourselves  the  liberty  of  testifying  against 
the  Act  of  Assembly  of  1732,  on  all  proper  occasions."  But  no; 
the  Four  would  not  accept  the  terms,  though  they  were  given 
a  night  to  think  over  them.  They  had  "  no  freedom  to  go  into 
the  proposal."  No  decision  of  a  subsequent  Assembly,  they 
said,  could  "  take  away  the  ground  of  protesting  against  a  wrong 
decision  of  a  preceding  Assembly." 

This  was,  indeed,  "greatly  to  find  quarrel  in  a  straw."  They 
were  then  "loosed  from  their  charges,"  so  they  put  in  protests. 
They  were  in  communion,  they  said,  with  the  True  Presbyterian 
Covenanted  Church  of  Scotland,"  but  not  "  with  the  prevailing  party 
in  this  Established  Church."  They  protested  that  they  still  could, 
and  would,  exercise  the  Keys  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  govern- 
ment " — in  short,  they  were  now  the  nucleus  of  the  True  Presbyterian 
Covenanted  Kirk,  with  the  Keys  of  St  Peter  at  their  belts. 

However  much  we  may  sympathise  with  the  sentiments  of  the 
four  Seceders,  as  regards  clerical  subserviency  towards  heritors 
and  "  the  great  of  this  world,"  their  secession  seems  to  have  been 
injudicious.     They  had  admirers  and  adherents  enough  within  the 


"ASSOCIATED    PRESBYTERY"   (1733).  301 

Kirk.  They  had,  apparently,  no  reason  to  despair  of  ultimately 
becoming  a  majority,  capable  of  reforming  the  Kirk  from  within. 
In  place  of  persevering  in  this  laudable  effort,  they  went  out, 
thanking  Heaven  pharisaically  that  they  were  not  as  these  Pharisees. 
Pugnacity  is  i\\Q  p^che  fnignon  of  such  very  good  men  as  these  were. 
They  prefer  a  sword  to  peace,  and  rejoice  in  the  delight  of  battle. 
It  is  argued  that  they  were  finally  deposed  "  because  they  had 
formed  themselves  into  a  Presbytery  [this  they  did  later]  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  to  their  countrymen  a  pure  dispensation  of 
Gospel  ordinances,  unfettered  by  the  laws  of  patronage  and  other 
Acts  of  Parliament."  ^^ 

To  do  this  might  be  praiseworthy,  but  it  was  obvious  that, 
if  they  seceded  from  the  State  Church,  that  Church  had  no  choice 
but  to  separate  them  from  her,  as  they  had  separated  themselves. 
You  cannot  both  eat  your  cake  and  have  it.  Mr  Grub,  a  very  fair 
writer,  says  that  the  opinion  just  cited  as  to  the  unrighteousness 
of  the  deposition  of  the  Seceders  "  would  be  reasonable  enough  if 
proceeding  from  an  Independent,  but  is  unfair  on  Presbyterian 
principles."  ^^  That  is  precisely  the  opinion  of  Wodrow  in  his 
letter  of  October  27,  1727,  to  Mr  Marr  of  Murross, — the  letter 
printed  in  'The  Christian  Instructor'  of  1832,  but  omitted  by 
the  Rev.  Thomas  M'Crie  from  his  edition  of  Wodrow's  '  Corre- 
spondence ' :  "I  am  apprehensive  that  the  serious  part  of  this 
Church  are  in  greater  hazard  of  turning  to  the  excesses  of  the 
Independents  than  many  are  aware  of."  Wodrow  was  right, 
though,  during  the  excitement  of  the  great  Disruption  (1843), 
his  Editor  omitted  his  letter  on  the  subject. 

On  December  5,  1733,  the  four  Seceders  met  at  Gairney  Bridge 
and  constituted  themselves  into  a  Presbytery,  with  a  Clerk  and 
Moderator.  In  1883  a  monument  was  erected  on  the  spot,  or 
near  it,  "the  dedication  address  being  given  by  Principal  Cairns." ^^ 
The  number  of  the  names  was  six,  —  both  Erskines,  Wilson, 
Moncrieff,  Fisher,  and  Mair;  but  Mair  and  Ralph  Erskine  were 
not  yet  in  this  "Associated  Presbytery."  Being  a  Presbytery, 
the  Four  were  not  Independents  :  such  was  their  position.  They 
did  not  yet  "exercise  the  Keys"  in  a  judicial  way,  but  they 
published  a  'Testimony.'  They  were  still  seceding,  not  from 
the  Kirk,  but  from  a  prevailing  party  in  the  Kirk,  which,  by 
"  riding  committees,"  was  taking  from  Presbyteries  "  that  power 
and  authority  that  they  have  received  from  the  Lord  Jesus."  ^^ 


302  THE   POWER   OF   THE   KEYS. 

The  measures  of  the  prevaiUng  party  also  "  do  actually  corrupt, 
or  have  the  most  direct  tendency  to  corrupt,  the  doctrine  contained 
in  our  excellent  confession  of  faith," — for  example,  Mr  Simson  had 
not  been  deprived  of  his  salary.  Moreover,  preaching  was  in  the 
way  to  become  "  a  sapless  and  lifeless  descanting  upon  the  moral 
virtues,"  of  which  people  do  need  to  be  reminded,  if  we  may 
judge  by  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  many  Apostolic  passages 
in  the  New  Testament.  There  were  other  charges,  and  the  Four 
*' believe  that  Christ  hath  appointed  church  officers  under  Him, 
distinct  from  the  civil  magistrate,  and  that  to  these  are  committed 
the  Keys  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  government." 

It  is  plain  that  if  all  preachers  had  agreed  on  this  head  with  the 
Four,  and  had  understood  their  power  of  the  Keys  in  the  sense  of 
the  claims  of  Knox  and  Andrew  Melville,  the  State  must  now  have 
entered  into  the  old  war  with  the  Church.  However,  fortunately, 
nothing  of  that  sort  was  necessary,  though  the  Four  did  believe  it 
lawful  for  a  minority  of  a  Church  "to  manage  the  Keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  if  the  majority  declined  from  "purity  of 
doctrine,  worship,  or  government " — in  the  opinion  of  the  minority.^'* 
The  Four  "  testified  their  belief  in  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
National  Covenant  and  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant."  The 
country  was  not  with  them  on  this  head  :  a  Covenanted  king  was 
not  to  be  found,  either  at  Rome  or  Herrenhausen,  for 

"Nature  brings  not  back  the  mastodon." 

Ideas  like  those  of  the  Four  were  cherished  by  many  serious 
concerned  Christians,  for  the  old  leaven  of  the  Covenant  worked 
among  the  more  earnest  of  the  populace.  Perhaps  the  Assembly 
saw  that  some  of  their  steps  had  been  erroneous,  and  that  one,  the 
Act  of  1732,  was  in  all  probability  illegal,  a  breach  of  the  Barrier 
Act:  perhaps  they  were  frightened.  They  repealed  in  1734  the 
Act  of  1730,  rejecting  protests,  and  the  Act  of  1732,  about  filling 
up  vacant  pulpits.  Approval  of  the  deed  of  the  Commission  in 
suspending  the  Four  was  reserved,  and  the  Assembly  in  1734  and 
in  1735  sent  a  Commission  to  appeal  to  king  and  Parliament 
against  patronage.  They  did  not,  however,  pray  to  be  admitted 
as  a  body  into  the  Associated  Presbytery  of  the  Four.  They  did 
assert  the  liberty  of  preachers  to  "  testify,"  and  declared  that  they 
had  never  restrained  or  intended  to  restrain  it.  The  Synod  of 
Perth  and  Stirling  was  granted  powers  to  restore  the  four  brethren, 


ERSKINE   AND   ACHILLES.  303 

and  the  Presbytery  of  Stirling  asked  Erskine  to  be  their  Moderator. 
But  Erskine  was  as  obdurate  as  Achilles  in  the  Ninth  Book  of  the 
'  Iliad,'  when  he  is  adjured  to  accept  the  offers  of  reconciliation. 

"  Dishonour  not  thou  the  heroes  that  beseech  thee,  who  to  thy- 
self are  the  dearest  of  the  Argives  ;  dishonour  not  their  petition  nor 
their  journey  hither,  though  in  the  past  thou  didst  no  wrong  when 
thou  wast  wroth."  So  Phoenix  prayed  Achilles,^^  and  so  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Stirling,  that  to  Mr  Erskine  were  "  the  dearest  of  the 
Argives,"  implored  him.  But  Mr  Erskine  had  read  the  Gospel 
in  a  sense  rather  different  from  that  in  which  it  is  accepted  by 
men  less  earnest.  He  gave  exactly  the  same  reason  for  his 
obduracy  as  Achilles  gave  in  the  case  of  Agamemnon's  petition 
for  reconciliation,  which  shows  the  uniformity  of  human  nature 
before  and  after  the  coming  of  the  Gospel.  Agamemnon,  says 
Achilles,  "  hath  done  wickedly,  but  never  again  shall  he  beguile 
me  with  fair  speech — let  that  sufifice  him."  In  the  same  way,  says 
Mr  M'Kerrow,  Mr  Erskine  "was  convinced  that  the  majority  [of 
the  Assembly]  were  actuated  by  the  same  spirit  as  formerly." 
The  majority,  he  said,  "were  actuated  by  the  same  spirit  of 
defection  as  ever,"^^  just  as  Achilles  did  not  believe  that  Agamem- 
non was  sincere  in  his  repentance.  The  majority,  by  cancelling 
their  Acts,  had  now  done  what  they  could  to  show  their  repent- 
ance, but  it  was  not  enough.  Mr  Erskine  knew  that  their  bad 
hearts  were  unchanged.  "  In  my  opinion,"  said  the  Achilles  of 
the  Secession,  "  it  would  be  by  far  much  wiser  for  these  reverend 
brethren  "  (who  asked  him  to  return  to  them)  "  to  come  out  from 
the  dangerous  current  to  us,  than  for  us  to  come  back  to  them  " 
(Jeremiah  xv.  19-21).  Thus  closely  did  Mr  Erskine  imitate 
Achilles,  who  invited  the  other  heroes  to  go  back  with  him  to 
Greece  and  desert  the  cause  of  their  army. 

The  conduct  of  Achilles  was  reprobated  even  by  the  rudimentary 
ethics  of  Homer's  age.  Achilles  was  young  and  fiery  :  Mr  Erskine 
was  fifty-four  years  of  age.  But  he  was  a  very  good  man,  and  very 
much  wedded  to  his  own  infallibility.  He  and  his  friends  displayed 
considerable  acuteness  in  refining  on  the  terms  of  the  Assembly's 
offers,  and  showing  why  they  were  not  sufficiently  excellent.  They 
would  not  let  bygones  be  bygones.  Mr  Erskine  said  that  he  had 
been  "  rebuked  for  having  testified  in  public."  He  had  really  been 
rebuked  for  "  venting  offensive  expressions,"  which  is  quite  another 
matter.     He  and  the  other  three  offered  to  return  on  six  conditions, 


304  COMPROMISE   REJECTED. 

one  of  which  involved  deliberate  breach  of  the  law  of  the  land  and 
the  Patronage  Act ;  while  another  would  have  caused  Presbyteries 
to  examine  candidates  for  Orders  as  to  "  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
upon  their  Souls."  They  are  also  understood  by  Professor  Mac- 
Ewen  to  have  insisted  that  the  Church  should  proclaim  a  National 
Fast,  in  recognition  of  her  guilt  in  not  agreeing  wholly  with 
Mr  Erskine,  or,  at  least,  "  for  the  acknowledgement  of  past 
defections."  *2 

In  1735  the  Four  brethren  began  to  "exercise  the  Keys"  in  a 
judicial  way,  and  to  embody  in  their  previous  extrajudicial  testi- 
mony "  a  judicial  condemnation  of  the  various  steps  of  defection 
which  had  been  pursued  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  from  the  year 
1650  downward  till  that  period."*^ 

Their  ideal,  it  seems,  was  the  Kirk  from  1638  to  1650, — the  Kirk 
that  defied  the  State  and  laid  the  distracted  country  at  the  feet  of 
an  English  conqueror;  the  Kirk  that  cried  for  the  blood  of 
prisoners  and  of  women  after  Philiphaugh ;  the  Kirk  of  MacEvoy 
and  massacre.  But  that  mastodon  Nature  will  never  bring  back ; 
the  brethren,  however,  could,  and  blamelessly  did,  provide  "  supply 
of  sermon  "  for  persons  dissatisfied  with  the  discourses  of  uncalled 
and  unpopular  parish  ministers  (1736).  They  did  not  yet  "license 
young  men"  as  preachers.  They  did  solemnly  meet  and  confess 
their  past  ecclesiastical  defections  to  each  other,  and  admonished 
each  other  with  perfect  and  amazing  gravity  at  their  own  bar,  like 
the  repentant  Kings  Valoroso  and  Padella  when  they  reciprocally 
flagellated  each  other  for  the  excesses  of  their  reigns.  Such  a  lack 
of  humour  was  a  warrant  for  success  in  their  enterprise,  and  it 
startles  their  historian,   Mr  M'Kerrow.*^ 

The  Assembly,  in  the  humblest  way,  now  passed  an  Act  enjoin- 
ing frequent  insistence  by  preachers  on  the  doctrine  of  St  Athan- 
asius  and  "the  necessity  of  supernatural  grace,"  and  they  declared 
against  intrusions  of  preachers  on  reluctant  congregations,  but  did 
not  always  act  up  to  their  principles  ;  while  they  merely  admonished 
Professor  Campbell  of  St  Andrews  to  be  careful,  in  place  of  depos- 
ing him  for  some  expressions  in  a  pamphlet,  '  The  Apostles  no 
Enthusiasts.'  This  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  slur  on  the 
Apostles.  In  December  the  Seceders  published  their  '  Judicial 
Testimony,'  exercising  the  Keys  with  vigour  :  the  Porteous  Riot, 
for  reasons  to  be  later  given,  added  to  the  excitement.  In  1739  the 
brethren,   now   an   organised   Church,   declined   the  jurisdiction  of 


SECEDERS   REVIVE   THE   COVENANTS.  305 

the  General  Assembly;  and,  at  last,  in  1740,  were  deposed  by  a 
majority  of  a  hundred  and  forty  to  thirty.  Secession  had  long  been 
imminent :  for  at  least  twenty-three  years  it  had  been  foreseen.  Now 
it  had  come,  with  the  usual  mixture  of  good  and  evil  consequences. 
Among  the  bad  results  was  the  exhibition  of  much  very  unchristian 
temper.  The  result  would  have  been  worse  had  the  whole  Kirk 
returned  to  the  fanatical  and  cruel  superstitions  of  Waristoun  and 
the  Protesters  of  1650. 

This  would  have  implied  a  revolt  against  the  uncovenanted 
George  II.,  while,  had  King  James  been  dead  and  Prince  Charles 
his  own  master,  Charles  III.  would  have  come  home  and  taken  the 
Covenant  more  nimbly  than  did  Charles  II.  It  would  have  been 
necessary  to  follow  the  Earl  of  Morton's  old  advice  and  hang  a 
few  preachers.  But  the  Kirk  at  large  did  not  join  the  Seceders, 
who  renewed  the  Covenants  in  a  purely  platonic  way,  remaining 
perfectly  loyal  to  the  uncovenanted  Hanoverians.  Their  motive 
for  renewing  the  Covenants  is  stated  by  the  biographer  of  the 
Erskines  as  "  a  wish  to  unite  friends  of  Truth,"  which  may  con- 
ceivably mean  to  bring  the  Cameronians  into  their  new  Kirk. 
The  religious  Presbyterians,  we  learn,  regarded  the  treatment  of 
the  Covenants  during  the  Restoration  "as  a  heinous  provocation 
to  God,"  who,  in  a  forgiving  spirit,  brought  the  Prince  of  Orange 
over.  In  1741  a  draught  of  an  Act  for  renewing  the  Covenants 
was  tabled  before  the  Associate  Presbytery,  and  was  warmly  wel- 
comed as  highly  seasonable,  except  by  a  Mr  Nairn.  He  was 
of  the  old  Dissenting  or  Cameronian  principles  as  to  existing 
Government — namely,  that  in  the  eyes  of  God  it  did  not  exist. 
It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Mr  Nairn  emitted  protests ;  at  all  events, 
in  1743  he  seceded  from  the  Seceders,  and  joined  Mr  John 
MacMillan  in  founding  quite  a  new  ecclesiastical  Court,  "The 
Reformed  Presbytery."  But  Mr  Erskine  persevered  with  what  he 
called  "  the  begun  resurrection  of  the  Covenants "  in  Stirling, 
where  James  Guthrie  had  been  maltreated  by  Malignants  before 
he  was  hanged  in  Edinburgh.  On  St  Valentine's  Day  1744  the 
Seceders  made  the  taking  of  the  Covenants  "  a  term  of  Ministerial 
and  Christian  Communion."  *^  The  Church  at  large  could  never 
have  relapsed  with  them  into  a  proceeding  so  absurdly  intolerant 
and  so  worthy  of  Mr  James  Guthrie.  It  is  obvious  that  if  the 
■Erskines  and  their  associates  were  the  men  to  refuse  to  communi- 
cate except  with  persons  who  revived  an  obsolete  folly,  they  must 

VOL.  IV.  U 


306  COVENANT   "  THE  TERM   OF   COMMUNION." 

have  seceded  sooner  or  later,  and  we  learn  that  "not  a  few  of 
the  seceding  ministers  were  afterwards  sensible  of  the  sinfulness 
of  this  act."  It  was  at  least  as  silly  as  sinful,  but  it  does  not 
seem  that  many  parishes  entered  into  the  folly,  and  a  rift  within 
the  Associated  Presbytery  deferred  the  work. 

Time  brings  wisdom,  and  in  1841  Mr  M'Kerrow,  the  historian 
of  the  Secession,  frankly  confesses  that  the  original  old  Coven- 
anters went  too  far  when  they  "violated  the  rights  of  conscience, 
making  the  subscribing  of  their  bond  the  test  of  a  person's  holding 
any  office — civil,  military,  or  ecclesiastical.  In  this  respect  their 
conduct  deserves  not  praise  but  blame,"  which  falls  on  Mr  James 
Guthrie,  among  many  other  fanatics.*^  Indeed,  Mr  M'Kerrow, 
much  to  his  praise,  goes  further  than  many  modern  sentimen- 
talists among  his  countrymen.  He  denounces  the  extremists  of 
1638- 1650  for  "foolishly  attempting  to  compel  all,  vi  et  armis^ 
to  come  within  the  bond  of  their  darling  Covenant,  as  if  no 
person  could  be  either  a  loyal  subject  [such  subjects  the  Coven- 
anters excemmunicated]  or  a  true  Christian  who  preferred 
remaining  without  the  mysterious  circle." 

The  New  Covenanters  drew  up  their  Covenant  "in  a  suitableness 
to  their  present  circumstances,"  which  the  original  Covenanters  did 
not.  However,  they  made  the  Covenant  "  the  term  of  ministerial 
and  Christian  communion,  as  if  this  constituted  the  only  satis- 
factory evidence  of  a  person  being  a  genuine  Christian.  .  .  ."^^ 
Another  modern  sympathiser  remarks  that  this  new  Covenanting 
was  "a  harmless  piece  of  religious  antiquarianism,"  which  seems 
uncertain.  If  a  soul  which  could  not  find  rest  in  the  Kirk  sought 
a  home  in  the  Church  of  the  Associated  Presbytery,  and  then 
was  met  by  the  foolish  demand  for  signature  to  the  Covenant, 
where  was  that  soul  to  shelter?  The  original  Covenant's  banner 
meant  "  Blood,  and  No  Quarter "  (as  Mr  Richard  Cameron  tersely 
put  it)  to  members  of  other  denominations.  The  "  circumstances  " 
of  the  New  Covenanters  were  not  "  suitable  "  to  the  demand  made 
on  them  by  the  old  Covenant :  the  circumstances  were  such  as 
to  subject  them  to  a  prelatic  king,  a  "  Baal-worshipper,"  in  the 
old  phrase.  Decidedly  there  was  a  lack  of  lucidity  of  thought 
and  of  sweet  reasonableness  among  the  Fathers  of  the  Secession, 
'i'he  peculiarities  which  they  developed  prove  that  they  could 
never  have  been  at  ease  within  the  national  Kirk,  and  even  fos- 
tered within  that  Kirk  the  growing  horror  of  what  was  then  called 


A  BACKWARD  GLANCE  (i 638-1  744).  307 

"enthusiasm."  Now,  as  we  understand  the  term,  a  reHgion  with 
no  enthusiasm  is  a  reHgion  with  no  vitality,  and  we  find  it  easier 
to  sympathise  with  the  old  enthusiasts,  despite  their  more  eccentric 
vagaries,  than  with  such  Moderates  as,  perhaps,  were  not  really 
without  religion,  but  thought  it  in  good  taste  to  keep  that  religion 
as  inconspicuous  as  if  it  had  been  absent. 

The  causes  of  the  dissensions  in  the  Church  are  sufficiently 
conspicuous.  The  old  Knoxian  spirit  of  the  ministers  in  general 
had  been  crushed  by  what  they  saw  of  its  consequences  between 
1638  and  the  Restoration.  From  1638  to  1650  the  Commission 
of  the  General  Assembly  had  been  a  terror  to  many,  and,  as  Baillie's 
correspondent,  Mr  Spang,  observed,  was  by  no  means  consistent 
with  ecclesiastical  freedom  for  any  ministers  who  would  not  go 
to  all  lengths  with  the  extremists.  The  success  of  the  extremists 
had  caused  the  defeats  and  the  conquest  of  the  country,  and  had 
split  the  Church  into  the  hostile  parties  of  Protesters  and  Resolu- 
tioners ;  while  the  English  governors  of  Scotland  during  the 
Cromwellian  occupation  had  not  been  favourable  to  the  rigours  of 
Presbyterial  discipline,  nor  to  the  abominable  cruelties  practised 
on  persons  accused  of  witchcraft.  The  misgovernment  of  the 
Restoration,  with  the  ferocities  of  torture  inflicted  on  men  like 
Mr  Mackail,  did  not  unite  in  a  common  sorrow  the  old  contending 
parties  of  the  wilder  and  milder  ministers  ;  for  the  murders  com- 
mitted on  Archbishop  Sharp  and  others,  with  Renwick's  declaration 
of  private  courts  and  war  by  assassination,  and  other  frenzies  of 
the  period,  were  denounced  by  the  majority  of  the  clergy,  who 
were  disdained  by  the  more  furious  for  their  acceptance  of  the 
Indulgence.  After  the  Revolution  the  influence  of  William  of 
Orange  was  entirely  on  the  side  of  moderate  measures,  as  far  as 
that  influence  went,  and  the  conformist  ministers  who  retained 
their  parishes  were,  in  a  few  instances  at  all  events,  men  of  sense 
and  toleration.  In  the  remote  isle  of  Tiree  Mr  Fraser  was  pro- 
ducing his  interesting  speculations  on  the  Second  Sight,  and  at 
Aberfeldy  Mr  Campbell  was  compiling  his  quaint  '  Secret  Common- 
wealth of  Elves,  Fauns,  and  Fairies,'  each  author  writing  as  if 
abnormal  or  supranormal  phenomena  were  not  causes  of  wrath, 
and  works  of  Satan  and  his  human  servants,  but  things  quite  in 
nature.  Their  spirit  was  entirely  unlike  that  of  Wodrow,  and  of 
the  Seceders  who  protested  against  the  abolition,  in  1734,  of  the 
old  laws  against  witchcraft.     The  labours    of   the   Royal   Society, 


308  WODROW   VERSUS  "ENTHUSIASM"   (1709). 

and  of  Newton,  Robert  Boyle,  and  others,  were  heard  of  through- 
out the  country,  and,  in  some  places,  produced  the  "  drolling 
Atheism "  of  the  Restoration  ;  in  others  a  dislike  of  the  minute 
certainties  of  Calvinistic  dogma,  and  a  desire  to  make  the  most 
and  the  best  of  what  is  best  in  "  the  natural  man." 

The  Revolution  of  1688  had  hardly  been  accomplished,  as  we 
have  seen,  when  the  restoration  of  trade  and  a  fair  share  for  Scot- 
land in  the  commerce  of  the  world  diverted  thought  into  other  than 
theological  channels.  Near  the  beginning  of  his  career  (September 
1709)  Wodrow  averred  that  the  nation  "would  go  down  into 
Egypt,"  having  "  ceased  to  depend  on  holy  and  kind  Providence 
for  the  outwards  in  trade,  &c."  Merchant  ships,  he  reckoned, 
were  likely  to  bring  the  plague  as  part  of  their  cargo ;  however, 
the  country  risked  it.*^ 

It  is  curious  to  observe  that  Wodrow,  who  occasionally  seems 
so  old-fashioned,  as  early  as  1709  takes  a  low  sense  of  spiritual 
experiences  which  were  very  important  to  Boston,  In  fact,  he  is 
against  what  was  beginning  to  be  called  "  enthusiasm."  Professor 
Campbell,  in  his  censurable  tract  on  '  The  Apostles  no  Enthusiasts,' 
derided  "  the  exercises,"  so  frequent  among  the  serious,  of  long 
private  prayer,  resulting  in  a  kind  of  ecstasy  of  incommunicable 
joy,  and  in  the  automatic  occurrence  of  comfortable  or  monitory 
Scriptural  phrases  to  the  mind.  One  of  the  murderers  of  Arch- 
bishop Sharp  had  a  phrase  thus  "borne  in  upon  him,"  and  the 
experience  was  looked  on  as  more  or  less  of  the  nature  of  inspira- 
tion from  without.  Campbell  averred  that  the  phenomena  were 
"mechanical,"  the  result  of  a  brain  and  nervous  system  deliberately 
wrought  up  to  excitement,  while  the  owner  of  the  brain  might  be, 
and  often  was,  a  wicked  hypocrite.  The  Apostles,  he  argued,  were 
not  men  of  this  kind,  but  sober  and  scientific  observers  of  an 
astonishing  train  of  actual  events.  His  object  plainly  was  to  deal 
a  sly  stroke  at  the  Seceders  and  other  "  enthusiasts,"  and  his 
language,  in  one  passage,  was  neither  respectful  nor  justified  by 
his  documents  in  the  Gospels,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Epistles.  The  subjective  phenomena  of  religious  experience  need 
to  be  studied  in  another  spirit  than  Campbell's. 

Wodrow,  as  a  young  man,  in  1709,  speaks  thus  about  "the  more 
closely  exercised  "  of  his  own  little  flock  :  "  They  run  to  an  extreme 
that  I  take  to  be  exceedingly  dangerous,  though  I  desire  to  observe 
it  with  all  tenderness  to  them.     They  are  frequently  shaken,  what 


THE   "MODERATES.  3O9 

with  one  temptation,  what  with  another,  and  they  take  not  the 
safest  .  .  .  way  to  examine  themselves  by  soHd  Scripture  marks, 
nor  go  this  way  to  the  Law  and  to  the  testimony ;  neither  do  they 
draw  any  comfort  from  their  tender  and  close  walk  with  God  when 
under  darkness ;  but,  in  the  room  of  these,  limit  their  inquiry  to 
their  former  experiences,  and  till  they  come  up  the  length  of  these 
again  they  will  not  be  satisfied,  and  try  themselves  mostly  with 
respect  to  the  places  of  Scripture  that  have  been  bor7ie  in  upon 
them,  and  will  receive  no  satisfaction  or  comfort  till  these  or  some 
new  Scriptures  be  borne  in  upon  them,  to  the  raising  of  their 
affections."  ^  * 

As  time  went  on,  the  general  trend  of  opinion  among  the  ministers 
was  to  discourage  these  symptoms  of  religious  hypochondria  which 
Wodrow  thought  "  extremely  dangerous,"  and  to  fall  back  on 
"  common-sense  "  and  the  inculcation  of  human  duties.  In  this 
they  were  encouraged  by  the  success  of  the  lectures  in  Moral 
Philosophy  delivered,  ifi  English,  not,  as  was  customary,  in  Latin, 
by  Mr  Hutcheson  (1729)  in  the  University  of  Glasgow.  These 
had  a  great  and  wide  influence  among  clerical  admirers  of  le  Men, 
le  beau,  le  vrai.  But  they  tended  to  suggest  that  the  natural  man 
was  not  so  totally  lost  and  depraved  a  being  as  he  ought  to  be, 
considering  the  original  error  of  his  Federal  Head,  Adam.  The 
sermons  which  were  inspired  by  Hutcheson  and  common  -  sense 
were  godless  and  "  sapless  morality,"  in  the  opinion  of  the  party 
in  and  out  of  the  Church  later  styled  "  Evangelical "  by  its 
members,  and  "  The  Wild  Men  "  or  "  High  Fliers  "  by  its  opponents, 
*'  The  Moderates." 

We  shall  later  have  an  opportunity  of  studying  some  eminent 
Moderates,  and  it  will  perhaps  appear  that  they  carried  Moderatism 
to  an  immoderate  extreme.  The  sermons  of  Dr  Carlyle,  for  example, 
at  Inveresk,  must  have  seemed  "  fushionless  "  to  the  more  serious 
members  of  a  rural  and  piscatorial  flock,  who  probably  swarmed 
off  into  one  or  other  branch  of  the  Secession, — for  the  Secession 
itself  broke  up  into  a  variety  of  Sects,  each  rebuked,  and  each 
protesting. 

*  For  a  case  of  strange  experiences  like  those  of  some  Catholic  Saints,  such  as 
Saint  Theresa,  see  'Diary  of  a  Senator  of  the  College  of  Justice'  (1717-1718). 
The  senator  is  Lord  Grange. 


3IO  NOTES. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   XII. 

1  Wodrow  to  Veitch,  February  19,  1717  :    Correspondence,  ii.   237.     In  the 
same  letter  Wodrow  says:    "We  hear  Mr  MacMillan  is  dead.     I'll  be  glad  to 
hear  if  it  hold. "     There  could  not  be  a  more  harmless  remark.     Wodrow  does 
not  say  that  he  will  be  glad  if  the  report  is  true,  but  that  he  will  be  glad  to  have 
authentic  intelligence.      His  editor,   the    Rev.    Thomas   M'Crie,  however,   says, 
"This  is  really  too  bad,  and  affords  a  melancholy  proof  how  far   the  odium 
theologicum  had  overcome  the  better  feelings  of  Wodrow's  heart." 
^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  253. 
^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii..  Appendix,  pp.  691-693. 
•*  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  270,  note. 
^  Grub,  iv,  54,  note. 

^  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Boston,  p.  317  :  1899. 
"^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  529. 
^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  546,  note  2. 
"  Edinburgh  Christian  Instructor,  Oct.  1831,  p.  698. 

^^  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Boston,  p.  359. 

^^  Memoirs  of  Thomas  Boston,  p.  364. 

^'■^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  640. 

1*  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  647. 

^■*  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  652-654. 

^^  Edinburgh  Christian  Instructor,  Oct.  1831,  p.  825. 

^^  These  letters  of  Wodrow  to  Mr  Marr  of  Murross  and  Lord  Grange  are  quoted 
from  'The  Edinburgh  Christian  Instructor,'  Feb.  1832,  p.  83,  note  4.  They  are 
dated  October  27,  1727.  For  some  inscrutable  reason  the  Rev.  Thomas  M'Crie 
did  not  publish  them  in  Wodrow's  Correspondence,  where  (iii.  324-326)  there  is 
a  blank  between  Sept.  18,  1727,  and  Uec.  27,  1727.  The  letters  testify  to 
Wodrow's  fond  of  common-sense. 

^'  MacEwen,  The  Erskines,  p.  56. 

^*  See  a  Diary  of  Mr  Mitchell's  expedition  to  London.  Miscellany  of  the 
Spalding  Club,  vol.  i. 

'8  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  ii.  408,  409. 

^  Wellwood,  Life  of  John  Erskine,  D.D.,  pp.  435-439. 

^  Wellwood,  Life  of  John  Erskine,  D.D.,  p.  436.  These  arc  very  tender 
themes,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  thread  the  labyrinth  of  law  and  debate  on  the 
subject.  Sir  Henry  Moncreiff  Wellwood,  D.D.,  is  here  contradicted  by  the  Rev. 
John  M'Kcrrow,  in  his  '  History  of  the  Secession  Church,'  \i.  29,  note  2  (1841). 
But  as  Sir  Henry  docs  not  advance  the  proposition  which  Mr  M'Kerrow 
attributes  to  him  and  contradicts,  further  discussion  is  unnecessary,  especially  as 
Mr  M'Kerrow  does  not  precisely  cite  the  passage  which  he  opposes. 

—  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  197-199,  249,  256. 

^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  254. 

"  Eraser's  Ralph  Erskine,  pp.  149,  150:   1S34. 

^  Eraser,  Ebenczer  Erskine,  p.  235:    1831. 

'*  Fraser,  Ralph  Erskine,  p.  182. 

^  Fraser,  Ebcnezer  Erskine,  pp.  255-257. 

**  Miscellany  of  the  Spalding  Club,  iii.,  Erskine  to  Pittodry,  August  1733. 


NOTES.  3  I  I 


29  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  234-320. 
^^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  435. 

31  Ebenezer  Ersl^ine,  p.  260. 

32  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  475. 
^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  iii.  468. 

^  Eraser,  Ebenezer  Erskine,  pp.  358-360. 

»«  MacEwen,  The  Erskines,  p.  75. 

3*5  M'Kerrow,  pp.  64,  135. 

^  Grub,  iv.  65. 

38  MacEwen,  The  Eiskines,  p.  79. 

^*  M'Kerrow,  p.  77. 

*°  M'Kerrow,  p.  81. 

■•i  Iliad,  ix.  520-524. 

■*-  M'Kerrow,  p.  87. 

43  MacEwen,  The  Erskines,  p.  86  ;  M'Kerrow,  p.  92. 

■"  M'Kerrow,  p.  94. 

*>  M'Kerrow,  p.  96. 

4«  Eraser,  Ebenezer  Erskine,  pp.  434,  435- 

4'  M'Kerrow,  p.  194. 

■^  M'Kerrow,  p.  195. 

^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,   .  49. 

^  Wodrow,  Correspondence,  i.  53,  54. 


212 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE    SECESSION.       PATRONAGE.       WITCHCRAFT. 
1736-1809, 

Looking  back  on  the  Secession  from  a  great  distance  in  time,  and 
from  new  conditions  of  thought  and  Ufe,  it  is,  perhaps,  impossible 
to  sympathise  fully  either  with  the  ministers  who  went  forth  from 
the  Kirk  or  with  the  Kirk  which  they  left.  We  cannot  easily 
believe  in  the  corrupt  condition  that  certainly  was  produced  by 
patronage  as  then  exercised,  and  patronage  was,  perhaps,  the  main 
cause  of  the  Secession.  Fortunately  we  have  evidence  from  private 
letters  which  justifies  the  feelings  entertained  against  patronage  by 
the  Erskines  and  their  associates.  In  1736  there  was  a  vacancy 
for  a  minister  at  Duffus.  The  right  of  patronage  was  disputed 
between  Sir  Robert  Gordon,  acting  for  the  Duke  of  Gordon,  a 
minor,  and  Dunbar  of  Newton.  The  case  was  laid  before  the 
Synod  of  Moray,  who,  with  the  later  adhesion  of  the  General 
Assembly,  pronounced  for  Dunbar.  Lovat,  that  eminent  pietist, 
took  an  eager  share  in  the  dispute.  "You  may  freely  depend 
upon  all  the  assistance  in  my  power,"  he  writes  to  Dunbar,  "and 
I  believe  I  have  as  much  to  say  with  the  ministers  of  that  Synod 
as  any  one  man  that  you  can  write  to." 

Three  of  these  ministers  Lovat  calls  "  pretty  fellows,  that  have 
a  great  deal  to  say  in  their  presbyteries."  So  Simon  (the  name 
is  appropriate)  sent  canvassing  letters  through  the  presbyteries  of 
Moray,  sent  Dalrachanie  to  ride  about  in  them,  and  despatched  a 
kind  of  ecclesiastical  fiery  cross  in  favour  of  Dunbar's  candidate, 
the  Rev.  John  ]'>ower.  In  the  General  Assembly,  too,  Simon  used 
all  his  influence,  which,  willi  members  from  Badenoch,  Strathspey, 
and   the  shire  of  Inverness,    was   considerable   indeed.     "  I   have 


LOVAT   AND   ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITICS    (1736).         313 

some  leading  men  of  the  Church,  that  are  in  the  first  posts  in  the 
nation,  who,  I  think,  are  the  prettiest  men  in  the  Church,  who  are 
my  very  good  friends."  We  cannot  imagine  the  Erskines  on  friendly 
terms  with  Lord  Lovat.  In  the  Assembly,  Sir  Robert  Gordon  can- 
vassed vigorously,  addressing  every  member  personally.  On  the 
other  side,  Mrs  Dunbar  travailed  among  the  ladies, — the  wives  of 
members,  it  is  to  be  presumed.  Sir  Robert  perpetually  entertained 
the  members  of  the  Assembly  at  dinner  and  breakfast,  while  the 
Dunbar  party  regaled  them  with  "  suppers  at  taverns,  which  comes 
to  no  small  expense."  The  strife  between  Sir  Robert  Gordon  and 
Dunbar  was  at  bottom  a  private  dispute  at  law,  but  it  was  fought 
out  over  the  people  of  the  kirk  of  Duffus,  the  competing  ministers 
being  only  pawns  in  the  game. 

Mr  Bower  died  in  1748,  Several  candidates  appeared.  One, 
a  kind  of  Scottish  Mr  Collins  (in  *  Pride  and  Prejudice '),  wrote  thus 
to  Mr  Dunbar,  the  patron  :  "  If  ye  shall  judge  it  proper  to  bestow 
any  particular  friend  or  relation  on  me  as  my  wife,  I  hereby 
promise  not  only  to  keep  my  affections  free,  but  also,  with  God's 
assistance,  to  accept  of  her,  preferably  to  any  other  person  whatever, 
as  my  future  spouse.  ...  I  beg  this  may  be  secreted  from  the 
world."  This  clergyman's  affections  were  very  well  regulated.  He 
makes  no  inquiry  as  to  the  character  of  the  lady  whom  his  patron  is 
anxious  to  bestow  in  matrimony.  Brodie  of  Brodie,  representing 
the  famous  old  Covenanter,  writes  in  support  of  a  candidate  of  his 
own  name.  He  could  not  write  in  a  style  more  godless.  "  I  hear 
Mr  Bower  is  past  recovery ;  so,  if  he  dies,  I  recommend  James 
Brodie  to  you  as  a  man  cut  out  to  your  own  mind, — a  good 
preacher,  and  a  modest,  civil,  obliging,  obedient  fellow,  with  whom 
you  can  be  quite  easy ;  nay,  you  cannot  find  such  a  man  for  your 
purpose  in  the  island.  Nay,  further,  Spynie  and  I  can  become 
bound  he  shall  demit  whenever  you  are  tired  of  him."^ 

Against  patronage  thus  exercised,  with  treats  to  the  General 
Assembly,  with  recommendations  as  if  of  a  rat-catcher,  with  abject 
pleadings  as  of  the  minister  who  was  master  of  his  affections,  what 
decent  man  could  forbear  to  protest  ?  Against  the  other  side,  the 
side  of  the  Seceders,  was  their  great  anachronism,  the  Covenant, 
and  their  meticulous  Calvinism  does  not  favourably  dispose  towards 
them  the  modern  mind.  Again,  preachers  of  their  way  of  thinking 
would  be  apt  to  behave  with  less  common-sense  than  "obedient 
fellows  "  like  Mr  James  Brodie  in  cases  of  witchcraft.     Even  people 


314  CANTRIPS   OF   WITCHES. 

like  Wodrow  were  firm  about  witchcraft,  and  likely  to  oppose,  as 
Wodrow's  friend,  Lord  Grange,  did  oppose,  the  abolition  of  the  old 
laws  against  witchcraft  in  1736. 

Wodrow,  in  171 1,  tells  this  anecdote.  A  minister  named 
Turner,  himself  Wodrow's  authority,  was  minister  of  Erskine,  in 
which  lived  Shaw  of  Bargarran,  his  daughter  Christian,  and  a 
woman  named  Margaret  Lang.  Being  from  home,  he  went  to 
meditate  in  a  wood,  where  a  presentiment  of  danger  to  his  family 
occurred  to  his  mind.  Next  day  he  rode  home,  praying  for  a  child 
of  his,  who,  as  he  felt,  was  dying.  The  idea  presented  itself  to 
him,  "  What  if  the  child  be  witched  ?  and  what  if  Margaret  Lang 
has  witched  the  child  ?  What  if  you  shall  be  one  person  that  shall 
lead  Margaret  Lang  to  be  burned  for  a  witch  ?  "  Arrived  at  home, 
he  found  the  child  dying,  and  a  year  later  "  he,  with  Mr  Blackwell, 
led  Margaret  Lang  to  the  fire,"  on  the  charge  of  bewitching  Miss 
Shaw  of  Bargarran,  a  girl  of  fourteen. 

This  child,  who  in  later  life  introduced  the  thread  manufacture 
into  Renfrewshire,  suffered  in  some  strange  hysterical  way,  and 
denounced  Margaret  Lang,  with  several  other  persons.  Doubtless 
she  was  as  honest  in  so  doing  as  was  the  Rev.  Mr  Turner  in  the 
case  of  his  infant.  There  are  modern  instances  enough  of  persons 
who,  taking  it  into  their  heads  that  they  are  victims  of  sorcery,  do 
suffer  in  the  same  inexplicable  sort  as  of  old,  probably  by  virtue  of 
self-suggestion.  The  old-fashioned  ministers  encouraged  rather  than 
restrained  these  delusions  :  it  is  certain  that  the  Moderates  were  of  a 
saner  way  of  thinking.  There  was  a  terrible  example  at  Pittenweem 
in  1704-5.  The  minister  and  kirk-session,  with  the  magistrates, 
addressed  the  Privy  Council  to  this  effect :  They  have  several 
witches  in  prison  for  their  conduct  to  a  young  blacksmith,  Patrick 
Mortoun,  aged  sixteen,  and  very  respectable.  Beatrix  Laing  (sorcery 
was  in  the  name)  had  asked  him  to  give  her  some  nails.  He  re- 
fused politely  :  she  vowed  to  be  avenged.  Next  day,  passing  her 
door,  he  saw  a  bucket  with  a  burning  coal  placed  in  water.  The 
motive,  he  thought,  was  sympathetic  magic  to  his  intention  :  his  life 
was  to  wane  as  the  coal  was  extinguished.  He  fell  into  a  decline ; 
his  body  swelled  up,  before  and  behind,  to  the  horror  of  the 
observers ;  his  limbs  became  rigid  and  "  could  not  be  bowed  or 
moved  by  any  strength," — symptoms  familiar  in  such  cases.  He 
denounced  seven  women,  including  Beatrix  Laing. 

Four,  among  them  Beatrix,  after  being  kept  from  sleep  by  pinch- 


TORTURE  AND  MURDER  OF  WOMEN  (1705).     315 

ing  and  pinpricks  for  many  nights,  made  the  orthodox  confessions 
as  to  their  compact  with  the  devil  and  the  rest  of  it.  One  of 
them,  Janet  Corphar,  explained  to  Lord  Primrose,  Lord  Kellie, 
and  others,  that  she  had  been  tortured  into  her  confession.  The 
minister  ordered  her  to  be  placed  in  a  den  under  the  steeple, 
whence,  probably  by  connivance,  she  escaped  to  Leuchars,  near 
St  Andrews.  The  minister  of  Leuchars,  Mr  Gordon,  apprehended 
her  and  sent  her  back  to  Pittenweem  without  notifying  the  magis- 
trates. It  is  stated  that  the  rabble  asked  the  Pittenweem  preacher, 
Mr  Cowper,  "what  they  should  do  with  her?"  He  told  them 
"they  might  do  what  they  pleased  with  her."  What  they  pleased 
to  do  was  unworthy  of  narration.  The  magistrates,  who  were 
assembled,  did  not  interfere.  The  woman's  daughters  were  not 
allowed  to  say  farewell  to  her  in  her  dying  agonies.  She  was  left 
on  the  street,  under  a  door  covered  with  great  stones.  "  We  are 
persuaded,"  writes  a  correspondent  in  the  Dunbar  papers,  "the 
Government  will  examine  this  affair  to  the  bottom,  and  lay  little 
stress  upon  what  the  magistrates  or  minister  of  Pittenweem  will  say 
to  smoothe  over  the  matter,  seeing  it  is  very  well  known  that 
either  of  them  could  have  quashed  that  rabble  and  prevented  that 
murder,  if  they  had  appeared  zealous  against  it.  .  .  ,  God  deliver 
us  from  those  principles  that  tend  to  such  practices  ! "  ^ 

The  "  principles  "  as  regards  belief  in  witches  were  not  likely  to 
be  found  (perhaps  better  principles  were  equally  lacking)  in  the 
"  obedient  fellows  "  preferred  by  patrons,  while  popular  candidates 
for  pulpits  were  apt  to  be  of  popular  principles.  Thus  there  were 
two  sides  even  to  the  question  of  patronage,  which  was  left  to  time 
and  the  evolution  of  ethics  and  opinion. 

The  later  history  of  the  Erskinian  Secession  may  be  briefly 
sketched.  The  first  protest  within  the  new  Church  was  made  as 
early  as  1737  by  five  elders,  who  appear  to  have  disliked  the 
method  of  examining  candidates  for  access  to  the  celebration  of 
the  Holy  Communion.  The  five  were  backed  by  "  the  prevailing 
party  "  in  the  old  Church,  and  by  the  magistrates  of  Stirling,  who 
appointed  the  five,  exclusive  of  the  other  elders,  to  watch  over  the 
plate  at  the  church  door  in  which  alms  and  oblations  were  deposited. 
On  February  25,  1739,  Mr  Erskine  put  in  his  protest,  and  even 
summoned  the  five  "to  appear  before  the  Judgement  Seat  of 
Christ."  2  He  also  appealed  to  such  of  the  congregation  as  were 
of  his  way  of  thinking, — "such  as  submit  to  the  laws  and  ordin- 


3l6  THE   SECEDERS   AND   WHITEFIELD    (1741). 

ances  of  Christ,  ...  to  meet  and  elect  church  officers."  Pre- 
cedents were  found  in  cases  of  1619-1620,  but  Mr  Erskine's 
biographer  thinks  that  he  did  somewhat  exceed  the  bounds  of 
strict  propriety.*  In  1740,  Mr  Erskine  being  absolutely  deposed 
by  the  Assembly,  the  church  doors  were  locked  against  him ;  but 
he  suppressed  the  zeal  of  his  followers  who  wished  to  break  them 
open,  and  preached  in  the  open  air.  A  church  was  presently  built 
at  the  expense  of  the  congregation  who  followed  him. 

In  June  1741  Mr  Erskine  was  in  correspondence  with  Whitefield, 
the  noted  Revivalist,  just  returned  from  America.  He  said  that 
"  wandering  sheep  came  with  their  bleatings  "  to  his  new  Church, 
and  that  the  Church  had  reason  to  invite  Whitefield  to  Scotland, 
and  help  "  to  build  up  the  fallen  tabernacle  of  David  in  Britain." 
He  was  sorry  "to  see  the  Wesleyans  so  far  left  to  themselves." 
Mr  Whitefield,  in  reply,  professed  himself  "quite  neuter"  as  to 
Church  government,  and  inclined  to  preach,  but  not  to  "  enter 
into  any  particular  connection."  On  August  5,  1741,  Mr  White- 
field  met  the  Associate  Presbytery  at  Dunfermline.  Whitefield 
(August  8,  1 741)  complained  that  "the  Associate  Presbytery  here 
are  so  confined  that  they  will  not  so  much  as  hear  me,  unless  I 
only  will  join  with  them."  They  went  about  forming  a  Presby- 
terial  meeting  "  to  discourse  and  set  me  right  about  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant."  Whitefield  told  them  that  preaching  about 
this  historical  document  "was  not  my  plan."  Mr  Erskine  made 
excuses  for  Whitefield,  as  an  Englishman,  but  another  member 
said  that  "  England  had  revolted  most  with  respect  to  Church 
government."  This  was  true.  Ralph  Erskine  asked  him  "to 
preach  only  for  them  till  he  had  further  light,"  the  reason  given 
being  "that  they  were  the  Lord's  people," — a  rather  exclusive  posi- 
tion. Whitefield  replied  that,  if  so,  the  devil's  people  had  more 
need  of  being  preached  to,  and  that,  for  his  part,  with  leave  granted 
by  the  Pope,  he  would  gladly  preach  in  St  Peter's.  Somebody  then 
preached  against  the  Liturgy,  the  Surplice,  the  Rose  in  the  Hat, 
so  that,  when  it  came  to  inviting  poor  sinners  to  the  Gospel,  "  his 
breath  was  so  gone  that  he  could  scarce  be  heard."  How  char- 
acteristic it  all  is  !  "  There  was  an  open  breach,"  but  Whitefield 
dined  with   "  these  otherwise  venerable  men  "  and  left.'' 

Ralph  Erskine,  in  an  undated  memorandum,  says  that  Whitefield 
wanted  to  begin  a  conference  on  Toleration,  but  Ebenezer  intro- 
duced  the   topic  of  Paul   and   Barnabas    and   their  ordination   of 


"revivals"    in    SCOTLAND    (1742).  317 

Elders  in  cities.  Whitefield  answered  that  he  meant  to  go  on 
preaching  "  without  proceeding  to  any  such  work "  as  ordaining 
elders,  and  "  had  no  freedom  to  leave  the  Church  of  England." 
Erskine  says  nothing  about  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  but 
Whitefield,  writing  at  the  moment,  can  hardly  be  wrong  about  the 
references  to  that  anachronism.  As  to  Ralph  Erskine's  "  We  are 
the  Lord's  people,"  though  we  may  trust  Whitefield's  memory  for 
the  phrase,  Ralph,  in  1740,  said  in  a  congregational  address,  "We 
are  far  from  thinking  that  all  are  Christ's  friends  that  join  with 
us,  and  that  all  are  His  enemies  who  do  not.  No,  indeed ! "  ^ 
Whitefield  and  the  brethren  had  dined  together  before  parting,  and 
might  have  drowned  the  ghost  of  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant 
in  a  Red  Sea  of  "  clairet  wine,"  then  cheap  and  good  in  Scotland. 
But  he  spoke  unkindly  of  the  brethren  as  "builders  of  an  unsub- 
stantial Babel."  ^ 

There  was  much  more  of  Babel  and  confusion  of  tongues  in  his 
own  proceedings.  Hand  in  hand  with  "  the  prevailing  party  in  the 
Church,"  he  went  preaching  about,  was  extremely  popular,  and  was 
useful  to  the  Established  Kirk,  which  shared  in  his  glories.  The 
minister  of  Cambuslang,  in  January  1742,  began  "revival  work," 
as  it  is  technically  styled,  with  daily  addresses  to  mixed  multitudes. 
People  fell  into  convulsions  and  saw  visions  in  the  contagious  ex- 
citement. Whitefield  returned  to  Scotland  in  1742,  took  an  active 
part  in  the  preaching,  and  contributed  to  the  results,  which  were  of 
the  usual  abnormal  kind.  These  trances  and  convulsions  of  crowds 
had  never  been  usual  in  Scotland — at  least,  we  do  not  hear  of  them 
in  connection  with  the  great  field -meetings  of  the  Cameronians ; 
and  the  strange  case  of  collective  hallucination,  men  seeing  swords 
of  various  fashions  falling  from  the  skies,  witnessed  and  recorded  by 
Patrick  Walker,  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  at  a  religious 
assembly.  The  Associate  Presbytery  were  now  left  out  in  the  cold  : 
they  had  no  part  in  the  Cambuslang  work.  Their  condition  was 
the  more  gracious,  but  it  may  have  been  injudicious  in  them  to 
denounce  the  work  formally  (July  15,  1742).  This  looked  like 
jealousy, — an  imputation  which  Ralph  Erskine  answered  by  saying 
that  "  Mr  Whitefield  was  cast  off  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
brethren  of  the  Presbytery  whenever  they  found  his  direct  opposi- 
tion to  that  cause.  And  this  was  done  at  his  first  coming  to  Scot- 
land. .  .  ."^  Some  brethren,  Mr  Gib  for  one,  wrote  against 
Whitefield  in  language  which  they  later  regretted. 


3l8       THE   CAMERONIANS  CALL  WHITEFIELD   "A   BOAR." 

The  awakening  of  religion  as  a  vital  thing,  in  the  heart  of  a  man 
or  of  a  multitude,  must  usually  be  accompanied  by  some  alteration 
of  the  normal  psychological  equilibrium.  It  has  always  been  thus 
accompanied,  whatever  the  nature  of  the  religion  in  each  case. 
The  Zulu  catechumens  of  Bishop  Callaway,  when  praying  in  lonely 
places,  were  affected  by  the  same  appearances  as  discomposed  St 
Anthony  and  other  saints  of  the  desert.  Each  mediaeval  renewal 
of  religious  emotion  had  its  miracles,  like  the  stigmata  of  St  Francis 
and  the  levitations  of  St  Colette.  Similar  phenomena  were  noted 
in  the  early  days  of  Irvingism  in  the  fanatical  and  excitable  west  of 
Scotland.  Wales  had  her  share  in  1 904-1 905.  The  strange  per- 
formances of  the  Camisards,  the  inexplicable  feats  of  the  devout  at 
the  tomb  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  are  familiarly  known  ;  while  at  the  end 
of  the  nineteenth  century  the  Red  Indian  pious,  in  the  Ghost  Dance 
of  the  Arapahoe,  reproduced  many  of  the  peculiarities  of  European 
exaltation.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Arapahoe,  the  agitating  and 
dominant  motive  was  Hope,  the  hope  of  rejoining  dead  friends 
beyond  the  grave.  One  string  on  which  Whitefield  played  was 
Fear.  The  sympathetic  Mr  Robe  of  Kilsyth,  a  place  under  the 
contagion,  wrote  '  A  Faithful  Narrative  of  the  Extraordinary  Work ' 
(1742),  and  frankly  said,  "  The  bodies  of  some  of  the  awakened  were 
seized  with  trembling  and  fainting ;  in  some  of  the  women  there 
were  hysterics,  and  convulsive  motions  in  others,  arising  from  an 
apprehension  and  fear  of  the  wrath  of  God."  ^ 

The  Suffering  Remnant  of  the  anti-Popish,  anti-Lutheran,  anti- 
Whitefieldian,  anti-Prelatic,  anti-Erastian,  anti-Sectarian,  true  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  Scotland  lifted  up  its  voice.  Whitefield  was  "a 
scandalous  idolater,  being  a  member  of  the  idolatrous  Church  of 
England.  .  .  .  He  is  a  limb  of  Antichrist,  a  boar,  and  a  wild 
beast,"  and  so  on.  We  hear  the  echoes  of  that  dread  horn  of 
Knox,  on  Cameronian  echoes  borne.  Whitefield  suffered  the 
attacks  on  him  unconcernedly.  He  was  strong  in  the  knowledge 
that  he  had  been  brought  acquainted  with  three  noblemen  and 
several  ladies  of  quality.  A  letter  from  the  Marquis  of  Lothian 
almost  overcame  him,  and  he  answered,  "  My  Lord, — I  am  sur- 
prised to  find  your  Lordship  so  condescending  as  to  write  to  me. 
How  bright  does  humility  shine  in  great  personages." -^"^  AVhite- 
ficld's  Scottish  ramble  closed  in  November   1742. 

The  Scceders  soon  quarrelled  among  themselves.  The  Reformed 
Kirk,  as  Knox  had  conceived  of  it,  was  indissolubly  united  with  the 


QUARREL   ABOUT   THE    BURGESS   OATH    (1746,    1747).      319 

reformed  State :  princes  and  other  magistrates  were  to  preserve  its 
purity,  and  persecute  idolaters, — all  this  under  the  direction  of  the 
Kirk  herself.  The  Seceders  were  Covenanters ;  the  State  and  the 
king  were,  and  were  likely  to  go  on  being,  uncovenanted.  How 
could  a  Covenanting  Kirk  endure  an  uncovenanted  State?  Now 
burgesses  took  the  Burgess  Oath,  a  thing  of  reformed  institution,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  Edinburgh  form,  "  I  protest  before  God  and 
your  Lordship,  that  I  profess  and  allow  with  my  heart  the  true  re- 
ligion which  at  this  present  is  publicly  preached  within  this  realm, 
and  authorised  by  the  laws  thereof;  I  shall  abide  thereat  and  de- 
fend the  same  to  my  life's  end,  renouncing  the  Roman  religion 
called  papistry." 

Now  the  Seceders  had  often  stated  publicly  that  true  religion 
was  not  publicly  preached  and  authorised  in  Scotland,  much  less 
so,  of  course,  in  England,  so  how  could  a  seceding  burgess  take 
the  Burgess  Oath  ?  thus  argued  the  Rev.  Mr  Moncrieff.  In  April 
1746  the  Synod  of  the  Seceders  agreed  with  Moncrieff  that  a 
seceding  burgess  could  not  conscientiously  take  the  Burgess  Oath. 
Ebenezer  Erskine  was  of  a  contrary  opinion  :  he  did  not  want 
to  prevent  men  from  taking  the  Covenant  because  they  had  taken 
the  Burgess  Oath,  and  saw  no  harm  in  it.  Some  other  brethren, 
of  course,  had  already  protested  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod, 
and  Mr  Erskine  adhered  to  their  protest.  "  Methinks "  Seceders 
"  do  protest  too  much,"  but  apparently  business  can  be  carried 
on  in  no  other  way  where  the  vote  of  a  majority  is  not  allowed  to 
decide  anything. 

The  Synod  met  in  Edinburgh  on  April  7,  1747.  About  sixty 
brethren  were  present.  It  was  proposed  to  refer  the  question  of 
debarring  burgesses  unconvinced  of  sin,  in  the  oath  from  the  Holy 
Communion,  to  the  Presbyteries  and  kirk-sessions.  Mr  Gib  pro- 
tested against  laying  the  lawful  decision  before  inferior  judicatories, 
though  the  question  perhaps  was,  Could  the  Synod  lawfully  introduce 
a  new  ground  for  excommunication  without  taking  the  votes  of  the 
Presbyteries?  Seeing  that  opinion  ran  against  him,  Mr  Moncrieff 
emitted  a  protest :  the  meeting  was  not  lawfully  constituted  "  in 
this  step."  All  present  who  voted,  voted  against  Mr  Moncrieff: 
he  and  his  party,  the  majority,  had  debarred  themselves  from 
voting  at  all.  Mr  Mair  then  moved  that  these  non-voters  were  the 
Church,  and  that  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Associate  Synod 
devolved  on  them  ;  so  we  must  conclude  that  the  others  had  lost 


320  THE   ERSKINES   HANDED   OVER   TO   SATAN. 

the  keys  of  discipline  and  the  other  keys.  Mr  Mair,  with  twenty- 
two  adherents,  then  left  the  place  of  meeting,  and  a  Fast  was 
appointed,  Mr  Ebenezer  Erskine  in  the  chair.  Next  day  twenty- 
two  of  Mr  Mair's  party  voted  themselves  to  be  the  genuine  Associate 
Synod.  In  course  of  time,  having  the  keys  of  power  and  discipline, 
they  "handed  the  Erskines  over  to  Satan,"  and  excommunicated 
them  and  their  adherents.  This  was  a  strong  measure,  and  proves, 
perhaps,  that  these  people  could  not  have  remained  in  the  bosom 
of  any  Church  where  ordinary  right  reason  prevailed. ^^  There 
was  a  place — a  distant  place — at  which  the  Erskines  drew  the  line ; 
there  was  a  length  to  which  they  could  not  go,  and  the  little 
revolution  "devoured  its  children"  or  cursed  them. 

These  grotesque  excommunications  of  members  of  the  new  little 
Church  by  other  members  of  the  new  little  Church,  these  great 
curses  about  nothing,  were  part  of  "  what  Scotland  owes  to  John 
Knox."  In  May  1559  he,  with  five  or  six  other  men — apostate 
priests  and  a  tailor  and  a  baker  —  claimed  and  exercised  the 
apostolic  grace  of  binding  on  earth  what  should  be  bound  in 
heaven.  These  insane  pretensions,  while  backed  by  civil  penalties 
enforced  by  the  State,  were  an  intolerable  danger  to  civilised 
society.  The  belief  in  the  possession  of  "  the  keys "  persisted 
among  the  Seceders,  and  we  behold  them  using  the  keys  against 
each  other.  They  had  become  a  survival,  and  their  successors 
and  historians  lament  their  perseverance  in  a  claim  which,  as 
advanced  by  Knox,  was  not  less  unfounded  or  less  grotesque  than 
when  it  was  acted  on  by  the  opponents  of  the  Burgess  Oath. 

Wherever  a  Secession  church  had  been  "  planted,"  the  apple 
of  discord  was  thrown.  "  Congregations  and  sessions  were  rent 
asunder ;  .  .  .  the  people,  distracted  by  abstruse  discussions  con- 
cerning the  Revolution  settlement.  Articles  of  Union,  and  Acts  of 
Parliament,  of  which  they  were  wholly  ignorant,  knew  not  what 
side  to  espouse,"  writes  the  historian.  The  schism  must,  at  least, 
have  caused  much  earnest  historical  study ;  and  the  people  of 
Scotland,  till  the  diffusion  of  education  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
were  much  more  familiar  with  their  national  history  than  is  now 
usual  in  any  class  of  society.  Mr  M'Kerrow  adds  that  lawsuits 
about  kirk  property  ensued  over  the  whole  country,  the  judges 
usually  deciding  in  favour  of  the  majority  in  each  divided  congre- 
gation. "Unholy  passions  were  called  into  play,"  but  "the  Gospel 
continued  to  be  purely  and  faithfully  preached "  by  the  ministers 


THE   ERSKINE   FAMILY   DIVIDED.  32 1 

of  both  factions.     The  Gospel,  however,  had  no  effect  in  cahning 
the  "  unholy  passions."  ^^ 

The  members  of  the  Erskine  family  (the  seceding  Erskines) 
were  in  opposite  camps,  Mr  Ebenezer's  favourite  daughter,  Ailie, 
had  married  a  minister  who  took  the  side  opposed  to  his  father- 
in-law,  the  Antiburgher  side.  She  asked  him,  when  he  returned 
from  a  meeting  of  his  party,  what  his  faction  had  done.  "  We  have 
excommunicated  them,"  replied  this  Roman  son-in-law.  "  You  have 
excommunicated  my  father  and  my  uncle  !  You  are  my  husband, 
but  never  more  shall  you  be  minister  of  mine."  The  lady,  there- 
fore, continued  to  sit  under  and  imbibed  the  doctrines  of  the  men 
whom  her  husband  had  handed  over  to  Satan,  which  the  husband 
took  very  unconcernedly.^^  Mr  Ralph's  son,  John,  was  with  the 
gentlemen  who  had  excommunicated  his  father,  and,  "  with  a  harsh- 
ness which  was  almost  savage,  John  was  appointed  to  conduct  the 
devotions  of  the  Synod."  ^*  These  were  the  bitter  fruits  of  the  old 
tree  of  the  Covenant. 

The  Established  Church,  while  the  separatists  were  conducting 
themselves  in  the  melancholy  manner  which  we  have  described, 
"  riveted  the  galling  yoke  of  Patronage  more  firmly  than  ever," 
says  the  Seceding  historian,  and  this  policy  surprises  him.^^  But 
it  is  not  surprising.  The  chosen  of  the  people,  we  may  presume, 
was  usually  much  more  inclined  than  the  chosen  of  the  patron 
to  the  deplorable  anachronisms  about  the  Covenant,  and  to  the 
other  scruples  which  led  husband  and  wife,  father  and  son,  into 
hostile  camps  among  the  Seceders.  Their  unchristian  excesses 
could  not  recommend  themselves  to  the  cool  heads  of  the  chief 
men  in  the  General  Assembly.  They  did  not  want  men  like 
Mr  John  Erskine  in  their  ranks,  even  if  the  keenly  argumentative 
Covenanting  flocks  did  want  them. 

Thus,  in  1755,  there  was  a  vacancy  at  Jedburgh.  The  elders 
issued  a  manifesto  that  they  would  "stand  and  fall  together  in 
the  election  of  a  minister  "  with  the  majority  of  the  parish.  The 
candidature  of  Mr  Boston,  junior,  minister  of  Oxnam,  was  organised, 
and  Mr  Boston  was  a  chip  of  the  old  anti-Abjuration  Boston, 
minister  of  Ettrick,  who  had  died  before  the  Secession.  The 
living  was  a  Crown  living,  and  the  Crown  presented  a  Mr  Douglas. 
The  parish  resisted,  the  Presbytery  refused  to  induct  Mr  Douglas, 
and  Mr  Boston,  remarking  that  "  several  things  in  the  National 
Church  have  all  along  been  disagreeable  to  me,"  left  it  and  threw 

VOL.  IV.  X 


322  DOCTRINAL   TROUBLES. 

in  his  lot  with  what  he  called  "the  oppressed  heritage  of  God," 
while  those  of  his  way  of  thinking  were  "  a  small  and  inconsiderable 
handful."  He  therefore  adhered  to  "  the  ministry  which  I  have 
received  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  but  shook  off  his  feet  the  dust  of 
the  National  Church.  He  occupied  a  chapel  at  Jedburgh,  and 
with  two  friends  in  1761  formed  himself  and  them  into  quite  a 
fresh  Presbytery, — not  Burgher,  not  Antiburgher,  not  that  of  the 
Rev.  John  Erskine,  nor  that  of  the  Rev.  Ralph  and  Ebenezer 
Erskine,  but  "  the  Presbytery  of  the  Relief." 

Meanwhile  "  gross  and  dangerous  errors "  on  doctrinal  points 
broke  out  in  pulpits  of  the  elder  Secession,  and  one  sinner,  Mr 
Carmichael,  came  under  the  lesser  excommunication,  and  was 
threatened  with  the  higher  excommunication.  A  Mr  Pirie,  also 
censured,  passionately  appealed  "from  the  procedure  of  the  Synod 
to  the  Court  of  Heaven,"  for  few  seem  to  have  understood  that, 
if  you  belong  to  an  association,  you  must  adhere  to  its  rules.  He 
conceived  "  a  distaste  at  the  Secession " ;  but  he  does  not  seem 
to  have  constituted  himself,  and  two  or  three  friends,  into  a  Pres- 
bytery. The  Synod  cautioned  its  ministers  "  against  an  affected 
pedantry  of  style  and  pronunciation,  and  politeness  of  expression, 
in  delivering  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,"  and  "  against  using  technical, 
philosophical,  and  learned  terms  that  are  not  commonly  under- 
stood." Perhaps  young  ministers  were  adopting,  or  trying  to  adopt, 
the  English  accent,  just  as  David  Hume  was  endeavouring  to  avoid 
Scotticisms  in  his  books.  The  results  may  have  been  very  odd. 
We  are  reminded  of  Ninian  Winzet's  complaint  against  the  English 
of  John  Knox  and  his  forsaking  of  his  mother  tongue.  The  new 
English  literature  from  Scottish  pens — as  of  Hume  and  Dr  Robert- 
son the  historian  —  had  begun  to  exist,  and  the  Seceders  were 
opposed  to  this  kind  of  belles  lettres}^  Had  the  whole  Kirk 
accepted  preachers  chosen  of  the  people,  the  revival  of  literature 
would  have  been  severely  checked,  though  we  are  not  to  put  litera- 
ture in  the  balance  with  the  Covenant  and  Calvinistic  doctrine. 

We  now  turn  to  a  fresh  schism,  in  which  one  of  the  leaders 
was  a  distinguished  man  of  letters.  In  later  years  Dr  M'Cric, 
the  learned  author  of  the  'Life  of  Knox'  and  other  works,  was 
an  Antiburgher  minister,  and,  in  his  youth,  sentiment  about  national 
covenanting  was  changing  among  the  Antiburghers.  They  thought 
of  "extending  the  Testimony  "  and  of  bringing  it  up  to  date,  "down 
to  present  times."     "  The  obligation  of  the  Covenants,  so  far  as 


DR    M'CRIE   EXCOMMUNICATED   (1806-1809).  323 

they  were   national  and  civil  in   their  object,  was  not  only  unac- 
knowledged, but  by  necessary  consequence  denied  and  impugned." 

Such  was  the  New  Testimony  of  the  Antiburghers  in  1804. 
The  New  Testimony  did  not  vindicate  "  the  giving  to  religious 
principles  the  formal  sanction  of  civil  authority."  Six  ministers 
disliked  the  New  Testimony,  among  them  Dr  M'Crie.  He  had 
"  no  New  Light  sentiment," — at  least  his  son  and  biographer  could 
find  no  traces  of  "  decidedly  New  Light  sentiment "  in  his  papers. 
The  New  Testimony  became  "a  term  of  communion"  in  May 
1804;  but  Dr  M'Crie,  with  his  friends,  protested.  In  1806  there 
were  only  four  protesters,  and  on  August  28,  1806,  they  con- 
stituted themselves  into  another  new  Presbytery.  "The  alarming 
intelligence "  reached  the  Antiburgher  Synod,  who,  "  filled  with 
indignation,"  promptly  excommunicated  Dr  M'Crie,  as  the  Arch- 
bishop in  the  '  Mort  Arthur '  "  did  the  curse,  in  the  best  manner, 
and  the  most  orguilous,"  or,  perhaps,  in  the  worst  manner,  "  with- 
out the  formalities  of  a  legal  process."  In  the  formal  document 
nothing  is  said  about  handing  the  historian  over  to  Satan.  His 
congregation  was  about  equally  divided,  and  there  were  legal 
struggles  for  the  chapel.  A  civil  court  decided  the  question,  and 
Dr  M'Crie  emitted  a  protest.  The  court,  however,  did  not  come 
to  a  final  decision  till  1809.  A  compromise  was  reached,  but 
Dr  M'Crie  had  to  leave  the  chapel.  Dr  M'Crie,  then,  represents 
the  Old  Lights,  as  against  the  Antiburgher  Synod,  who  were  New 
Lights.  ^^ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  an  appreciation  of  mere  secular 
learning  and  polite  literature,  greatly  discouraged  and  almost 
destroyed  in  Scotland  by  the  Reformation  and  the  succeeding 
century  of  war  and  revolution,  was  fostered  within  the  bosom  of 
the  Established  Church  from  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
onwards,  and  had  crept  even  into  the  Old  Light  community  by 
the  time  of  Dr  M'Crie.  He  was,  as  it  were,  the  Wodrow  of  the 
Secession,  a  keen  antiquarian  and  a  most  scholarly  investigator 
of  the  manuscript  sources  of  history.  He  even  condescended  to 
review  novels — at  least  to  review,  in  the  spirit  of  historical  research, 
Scott's  'Old  Mortality.'  The  critique  would  make  a  fairly  large 
volume  in  itself.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  Scott  had  professedly 
written,  not  a  history,  but  a  romance.  Sir  Walter  replied,  anony- 
mously, with  great  good-humour  ;  and  Dr  M'Crie  "  himself  used 
to  mention,  to   the   credit   of  Sir  Walter,    that   he  met   him   after 


324  CARLYLEAN   SENTIMENT   IN   HISTORY. 

'  the  attack '  with   as    much   frankness  and   cordiality  as    before." 
It  was  not  in  Scott's  nature  to  behave  otherwise.^^ 

It  is  pleasant  to  meet  a  good-humoured  layman  after  this  long 
study  of  clerical  excommunications.  The  historian  of  Knox  and 
his  Reformation,  Dr  M'Crie,  regarded  the  '  History  of  Scodand ' 
by  Dr  Robertson,  a  leader  of  the  Established  Church  in  the 
days  which  followed  the  Secession,  as  "  the  most  beautiful  piece 
of  history  he  ever  read."  Yet  the  book  is  an  example  of  that  new 
"polite"  style  in  Scottish  literature  which  the  Antiburghers  dis- 
couraged— at  least,  in  sermons.  Dr  Robertson  did  not  regard  the 
Reformation  and  Knox  with  the  affectionate  eyes  of  Dr  M'Crie; 
indeed  he  is  accused  of  hinting  that  the  Reformation  might  con- 
ceivably be  regarded  "  as  the  effect  of  some  wild  and  enthusiastic 
frenzy  in  the  human  mind."  That  would  be  a  very  one-sided  and 
unhistorical  view  of  the  case,  though  wild  frenzy  too  much  abounded 
in  1 559-1650.  By  a  curious  change  in  taste,  the  opinions  of 
Robertson,  and  of  his  learned  successor  and  namesake  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  Dr  Joseph  Robertson,  have  given  place  to 
a  kind  of  Carlylean  sentiment  as  regards  the  Reformation  and 
Knox,  so  that  to  investigate  closely  the  historical  documents  of 
the  period,  and  the  characters  of  the  actors,  is  censured  as  unfeel- 
ing, unpatriotic,  and  almost  impious.  It  is  odd  that  this  unin- 
structed  reversion  to  mere  sentiment  should  be  accompanied  by  a 
disregard  of  the  old  "standards"  and  dogmas,  which  would  have 
alarmed  and  irritated  no  man  so  much  as  Knox  himself.  Perhaps, 
in  the  course  of  ages,  ignorant  sentiment  may  give  place  to  a 
regard  for  historical  truth. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XIII. 

'  Dunbar,  Social  Life  in  Former  Days,  i.  240-257. 

2  Dunbar,  Social  Life  in  Former  Days,  i.  261-273. 

^  Fraser,  Ebenezer  Erskine,  p.  410. 

*  Eraser,  Ebenezer  Erskine,  p.  413. 

"  Fraser,  Ralph  Erskine,  pp.  329-331. 

^  Ralph  Erskine,  p.  343. 

'  Ebenezer  Erskine,  p.  429. 

"  Faith  No  Fancy,  p.  351. 


NOTES.  325 

9  Tyreman's  Whitefield,  ii.  7,  note  3. 
1"  Tyreman's  Whitefiekl,  i.  515. 
"  M'Kerrow,  pp.  208-238. 
12  M'Kerrow,  pp.  237,  238. 
'^  MacEwen,  The  Erskines,  p.  132. 
"  MacEwen,  The  Erskines,  p.  133. 
^'  M'Kerrow,  pp.  278,  279. 
^•5  M'Kerrow,  pp.  280-292. 
"  Life  of  Thomas  M'Crie,  D.D.,  by  his  son,  the  Rev.  Thomas  M'Crie,  1840, 

pp.  40-145- 

18  Life  of  Thomas  M'Crie,  D.D.,  by  his  son,  the  Rev.  Thomas  M'Crie,  1840, 

pp.  225,  226. 


326 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

THE   JACOBITE    CHURCHMEN    AND    STATESMEN. 
1704-1735- 

In  religious  matters  the  clergy  of  the  suffering  Church  Episcopal  in 
Scotland  were  not  much  more  harmonious  and  peaceful  than  their 
wrangling  Presbyterian  brethren.  The  last  Primate,  Archbishop 
Ross  of  St  Andrews,  died  in  June  1704,  and  with  him  passed  away 
the  Primacy  and  the  Metropolitan  jurisdiction.  The  remaining 
bishops  and  clergy  did  not  attempt  to  promote  a  new  Primate : 
it  might  have  been  unsafe,  and  they  had  a  singular  respect  for 
their  king,  though  an  exile,  a  Catholic,  and  a  boy  of  sixteen. 
Since  Father  Innes  regarded  a  promise  on  James's  part  to  protect 
the  Church  of  England  as  "  sinful,"  he  probably  would  not  have 
approved  of  James  if  he  appointed  a  Primate  over  the  Episcopal 
Church  of  Scotland.  These  illogical  loyalists,  the  Jacobite  clergy, 
had  now  a  very  scant  supply  of  bishops  to  carry  on  the  Episcopal 
succession,  and  deemed  it  the  best  plan  to  consecrate  bishops 
without  dioceses.  The  Episcopal  order  would  be  kept  up,  yet  the 
king's  privilege  of  nominating  to  vacant  sees  would  remain  intact. 
Sage  and  Fullarton  were  consecrated  in  this  irregular  fashion  :  the 
former  had  been  recommended  for  the  Chair  of  Divinity  in  St 
Mary's  College,  St  Andrews,  in  1688,  but  the  Revolution  came, 
and  in  1696  Sage  was  obliged  to  skulk  "in  the  hills  of  Angus." 
At  the  consecration,  Bishop  Ross  of  St  Andrews  takes  the  title  of 
"vicar  general." 

After  1 7 16  Rose  was  the  only  survivor  of  the  pre-Revolutionary 
diocesan  bishops,  and  acted  practically,  though  not  in  name,  as 
Primate.  In  1709  the  bishops  were  recruited  by  the  consecra- 
tion of  Falconer  and   Christie,   the   proceedings,  as  before,  being 


SCOTTISH    EPISCOPAL    NON-JUROKS.  327 

as  secret  as  possible.  Sage  died  in  1711,  and  Archibald  Campbell 
was  consecrated.  He  was  the  son  of  Lord  Neil  Campbell,  and 
was  nephew  and  companion-in-arms  of  the  Earl  of  Argyll,  exe- 
cuted for  rebellion  in  1685.  His  life  was  spared;  he  became  a 
Jacobite,  was  ordained  in  London,  and,  after  becoming  a  bishop 
of  the  Scottish  Church,  he  remained  in  England.  In  London, 
too,  was  consecrated  (17 12)  James  Gadderar,  by  the  non-juring 
Hickes,  at  one  time  chaplain  to  the  Lauderdale  of  the  Restora- 
tion, and  Bishops  Falconer  and  Campbell.  Bishop  Rose  and  the 
other  Scottish  bishops  approved,  and  the  step  tended  to  merge 
the  Scottish  with  the  non-juring  English  ecclesiastics.  The  use 
of  the  Prayer-Book,  all  but  extinct  among  the  Episcopalians  of 
the  Restoration,  was  now  revived,  though  it  seems  to  have  been 
disliked  by  the  Lowland  Episcopalians  of  the  poorer  class.  In 
Aberdeen  it  was  brought  into  the  College  Chapel,  which  Govern- 
ment closed.  The  book  employed  was  the  English  Liturgy,  not 
that  which  Laud  vainly  attempted  to  thrust  on  the  Kirk  ;  but  Laud's 
book  even  now  continues  to  trouble  the  Scottish  Episcopalians. 
The  Liturgy  was  licensed  by  the  Toleration  Act  of  Queen  Anne  in 
cases  where  the  Episcopal  ministers  took  the  oaths  of  Abjuration 
and  Allegiance  ;  but  these  men  were  in  the  minority,  especially  after 
the  death  of  Queen  Anne,  who,  at  least,  was  a  Stuart.  In  the  Rising 
of  1 7 1 5  the  Episcopal  clergy  were  notoriously,  those  of  Aberdeen- 
shire were  publicly,  on  the  side  of  James. 

In  May  17 16  King  George  bade  the  Scottish  judges  shut  up 
Episcopal  chapels  in  which  he  was  not  prayed  for ;  and  the  peccant 
clergy  were  summoned  and  commanded  to  register  their  letters  of 
Orders.  Those  who  complied  continued  to  officiate.  In  Aberdeen- 
shire several  were  deposed  by  their  Presbyteries,  and  their  churches 
were  held  against  them  by  armed  force.^  In  1 7 1 9,  while  the 
Abjuration  Oath  was  being  softened  for  Presbyterian  acceptance,  as 
we  have  seen,  it  was  enacted  that  no  Episcopal  clergyman  should 
officiate  before  nine  or  more  persons  in  addition  to  those  of  his 
own  household,  unless  he  took  the  Abjuration  Oath  and  expressly 
prayed  for  King  George.  The  penalty  was  imprisonment  for  six 
months  and  the  shutting  up  of  his  chapel.  The  Act  appears  not 
to  have  been  strenuously  enforced.  The  acting  Primate,  Bishop 
Rose,  one  of  James's  agents,  died  in  March  1720,  and  was  buried 
in  that  old  church  where  lie  the  Logans  of  Restalrig, — a  church  that 
the  first  General  Assembly  had  doomed  to  destruction  as  a  "monu- 


328  JAMES   AND  THE  BISHOPS   (1720-1722), 

ment  of  idolatry."  Rose  had  kept  peace  in  his  day  among  his 
brethren,  but  now  there  was  no  surviving  diocesan  bishop.  No 
bishop  had  any  acknowledged  jurisdiction. 

Meanwhile  the  singular  Erastianism  of  the  Jacobites,  represented 
by  Trustees,  a  body  of  men  suggested  by  Lockhart  of  Carnwath  and 
accepted  by  James,  came  into  play.  Without  consulting  the  king, 
but  confident  of  his  approval,  the  clergy  selected  Fullarton  to  fill 
the  place  of  Rose,  and  the  bishops  were  constituted  an  Episcopal 
College.  Lockhart,  writing  on  April  25,  1720,  laid  the  facts 
before  James  for  his  sanction.  He  explained  that  Mr  Archibald 
Campbell  had  none  of  the  qualifications  needed  in  a  bishop,  and 
by  no  means  all  of  those  desirable  in  a  gentleman  ;  that  his  con- 
secration had  been  most  imprudent ;  and  that  he  was  now  in 
Edinburgh  forming  a  party  and  urging  "  unseasonable  doctrines." 
James  should  therefore  support  Fullarton,  for  whom  an  income  of 
;^ioo  a-year  had  been  subscribed.-  The  king,  in  a  letter  of 
grateful  courtesy  to  the  bishops  (July  2,  1720),  approved  of  their 
promotion  of  Fullarton,  though  circumstances  "  had  not  permitted 
certain  forms  to  be  observed,"  but  suggested  that,  in  future,  the 
names  of  proposed  bishops  ought  to  be  submitted  to  himself.  "  We 
shall,  you  may  be  assured,  have  all  possible  regard  for  your  opinion 
in  such  cases."  ^  There  was,  however,  one  candidate  whom  the 
king  named,  Freebairn,  who  was  not  very  acceptable  to  the  suffer- 
ing Church.  Lockhart  remonstrated ;  Freebairn  "  was  not  under 
any  bad  character,"  but  his  learning  and  good  sense  were  deemed 
inadequate  by  the  clergy  and  laity.  Lockhart  hoped  that  in  future 
the  king  would  consult  the  bishops  before  making  any  nomination.* 

Here  we  have,  practically,  the  question  which  rent  the  Kirk — the 
question  of  the  patron,  the  presbytery,  and  the  people.  Freebairn's 
son  was  then  at  Rome,  and  persuaded  James  that  the  bishops 
objected  to  his  exercise  of  patronage,  "  which  the  king  took  very 
ill."  His  shred  of  prerogative  seemed  to  be  at  stake  among  his 
most  devoted  subjects.  The  bishops  caused  Lockhart  to  explain, 
showing  that  there  was  no  need  of  hurry,  and  that  they  had  con- 
sulted the  king's  Trustees,  Hamilton,  Wigtoun,  Kincardine,  Bal- 
merino.  Dun,  Maul,  and  Paterson,  who  all  agreed  that  haste  was 
prejudicial  (March  27,  1722).^  James  replied  that  two  of  the  three 
bishops  nominated  by  him  had  been  proposed  to  him  "by  friends 
in  your  party."  The  bishops,  therefore,  consecrated  Freebairn, 
with  the  Rev.  Andrew  Cant,  whose  name  is  singularly  unprelatic. 


"THE   usages"   in    RITUAL.  329 

Bishop  Falconer  made  some  objections,  being  "  afraid  of  the  rights 
of  the  Church  "  ;  but  Lockhart  soothed  him  with  the  letter  in  which 
the  king  had  expressed  his  intention  not  in  future  to  name  any 
candidate  without  previously  consulting  the  bishops.  The  plot  of 
Layer  and  Atterbury  at  this  date  (1722)  made  communication 
between  James  and  his  faithful  ones  difficult  and  dangerous.^ 

Meanwhile  the  suffering  Church  was  troubled  by  "  Ritualism," 
a  malady  most  incident  to  Protestant  communions.  The  English 
non -jurors,  as  Lockhart  remarks  to  James  (December  7,  1722), 
had  long  been  at  war  among  themselves  "  concerning  some  altera- 
tions that  some  of  the  number  desired  in  the  Liturgy  and  forms 
of  worship,"  Both  Archibald  Campbell  and  Gadderar,  the  Scots 
bishops  consecrated  in  England,  were  advanced  ritualists,  as 
were  the  Aberdeenshire  Episcopal  clergy,  who  had  made  Camp- 
bell their  Ordinary.  The  other  bishops  resisted  this  harmonious 
call :  Gadderar  acted,  for  a  while,  as  a  kind  of  suffragan  to 
Campbell,  and,  in  1725,  to  Gadderar  did  Campbell  resign,  with 
an  irregular  reservation  in  his  own  favour.''  All  bishops,  save 
Falconer,  Gadderar,  and  Campbell,  were  opposed  to  the  ritual,  the 
"Usages,"  which  the  northern  brethren  desired  to  introduce,  but, 
says  Lockhart,  "  the  clergy,  of  all  mankind,  are  most  zealous  to 
propagate  and  advance  their  own  schemes."^  Long  ago  Calvin 
had  deemed  the  schism  in  the  Church  of  English  exiles  at  Frank- 
fort valde  alfsurdum,  considering  their  rueful  circumstances.  But, 
from  the  case  of  the  Seceders,  it  really  seems  as  if  the  clergy 
make  war  most  fiercely  on  each  other  in  proportion  as  their 
numbers  are  small  and  their  circumstances  exiguous. 

Lockhart  does  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  tell  James  what 
particular  "  usages "  his  heretical  subjects  were  quarrelling  about. 
They  were  nearly  as  important  as  a  point  of  ritual  which  excited 
some  of  the  Seceders,  and  led  to  the  celebrated  Smytonite  con- 
troversy. The  Rev.  David  Smyton  of  Kilmaurs,  of  the  Antiburgher 
branch  of  the  Secession  Church,  "lifted"  the  sacred  elements  lie/ore 
the  consecration  prayer.  Others  did  not  "lift"  them  till  offer 
the  consecration  prayer.  The  Synod,  being  appealed  to,  exercised 
unprecedented  common-sense,  and  urged  "mutual  forbearance" 
(1782).  On  May  21,  before  the  session  of  Kilmaurs,  Mr  Smyton 
emitted  a  protest  against  "  boundless  toleration."  In  September 
Mr  Gib  also  emitted  a  protest  on  the  other  side.  Mr  Smyton 
finally  "renounced   the  authority  of  the   Synod,"  and   the   Synod 


330  LOCKHART   AND   THE   BISHOPS   (1722). 

did  its  best  to  persuade  the  laity  that  there  ought  to  be  such  a 
thing  as  "a  forbearing  of  one  another  in  love"  in  disputable 
matters  of  no  importance.'-* 

But  a  forbearing  of  one  another  in  love  has  always  been  an 
unpalatable  doctrine,  and  has  seemed  infinitely  less  essential  to 
the  Christian  life  than  matters  like  the  Usages,  the  Mixing  of  Water 
with  the  Wine,  the  Commemoration  of  the  Faithful  Departed,  the 
use  of  the  Chrism  both  in  Baptism  and  Consecration,  and  similar 
matters,  which  now  convulsed  the  Episcopal  clergy  and  congrega- 
tions. The  Usages  may  have  had  some  support  in  Laud's  amateur 
Prayer-Book  of  1637,  but  were  more  confirmed  by  the  example 
of  the  advanced  ritualistic  party  among  the  English  Non-jurors  led 
by  Collier.  Bishop  Rose  had  to  them  recommended  forbearance, 
but  the  spirit  of  Archbishop  Leighton  is  never  a  practical  spirit : 
men,  being  reasonable,  must  and  will  find  a  quarrel  in  a  straw. 
Bishop  Falconer  found  the  Usages  "  apostolical "  and  "  primitive  " 
and  "  desirable."  ^'^  Lockhart  told  James  that  the  bishops  who, 
against  the  majority,  favoured  the  Usages  were  schismatic,  and 
were  injuring  the  Cause.  He  attended  a  meeting  of  the  College 
of  Bishops,  who  ran  at  him  with  the  Fathers,  just  as  Whitefield 
was  confronted  with  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  Lock- 
hart  said  that  "it  was  none  of  his  province  to  judge  of  such 
points," — that  he  came  there  to  enjoin  unity  and  harmony  in  the 
name  of  the  king.  "  What  reck  these  brawlers  of  the  name  of 
king  ? "  However,  they  were  quieted  for  the  moment,  Lockhart 
trying  to  convince  them  that  one  or  two  bishops  ought  to  go  with 
the  decision  of  the  College  of  Bishops.  But  holy  men,  as  we 
have  seen  in  so  many  instances,  do  not  yield  to  majorities  in  the 
Church:   theirs  is  another  warrant  (December  7,  1722). 

Bishop  Gadderar  went  on  with  the  Usages  as  he  pleased  in 
Aberdeenshire ;  chrisms  were  more  to  him  than  the  Rightful 
Cause,  or  the  king,  or  the  College  of  Bishops.  They  were  delay- 
ing to  suspend  Gadderar,  and  hoped  that  a  letter  from  James 
might  do  good  :  the  situation  was  delicate.  Presbyterians  might 
urge  that  the  Episcopalians  were  rushing  to  Rome  by  way  of 
the  Usages,  and  it  was  not  easy  for  James  to  forbid  them  to 
approach  his  own  Church,  not  to  mention  the  flagrant  "  Erastian- 
ism  "  of  such  a  command.  Presbyterians  would  say,  "  You  are 
only  not  Papists  because  you  are  Erastians,"  and,  again,  the 
Pope  might  take  it  ill.     As  Gaddcrar's  claim  to  the  Bishopric  of 


JAMES   ADVISES   FORBEARANCE   IN    LOVE.  331 

Aberdeen  was  of  the  least  regular,  the  College  of  Bishops  thought 
of  citing  him,  and,  as  he  would  decline  to  appear,  of  suspending 
him.^^  Falconer,  in  a  cryptic  way,  supported  Gadderar.  The 
king  answered  the  request  for  his  intervention  in  the  only  possible 
way.  He  advised  forbearance  in  love  (August  20,  1723).  But 
where  was  the  use  of  that,  asked  Lockhart,  "  seeing  both  the 
contending  parties  pretended  they  were  in  the  right,  and  did 
desire  to  promote  peace  and  unity,  provided  their  opponents  would 
knock  under? "^2  Lockhart  had  purposely  omitted  the  nature 
of  the  details  in  ritual,  lest  James  should  sympathise  with  the 
Gadderarenes,  which  it  is  not  probable  that  he  would  have  done. 
On  March  18,  1724,  James  accepted  the  list  of  four  new  bishops 
sent  to  him  by  the  College  of  Bishops,  adjuring  them  to  delay 
the  consecration  as  long  as  they  pleased,  "  as  I  am  most  tender 
of  anything  that  might  in  the  least  disturb  your  peace,  or  give 
our  adversaries  any  handle  to  exercise  new  cruelty  towards  you."  ^^ 

On  July  4,  1724,  a  compromise  was  made.  Gadderar  con- 
sented not  to  "  mix  publicly,"  and  not  to  refuse  the  unmixed 
cup.  Laud's  Liturgy  was  permitted  by  the  Primus,  and  Gadderar 
promised  to  introduce  no  more  unaccustomed  ancient  usages. 
Gadderar  was  authorised  to  act  Episcopally  as  long  as  he  did 
not  claim  to  do  so  on  Campbell's  authority,  and  the  other  bishops 
were  not  to  be  understood  as  approving  of  "  the  Mixture."  It  is 
to  be  feared  that  these  men  were  less  earnest  than  the  Seceders, 
since  a  noble  opportunity  for  protests  and  excommunications  and 
schisms  was  neglected  by  them.  The  trouble  about  patronage, 
however,  remained  alive,  and  the  clergy,  with  many  of  the  gentry 
of  Angus,  a  shire  always  Episcopal  and  Jacobite,  opposed  the 
appointment  of  Dr  Norrie  as  their  bishop,  preferring  Dr  Rattray. 
With  Panmure,  a  leading  Jacobite,  espousing  the  cause  of  Rattray, 
while  Strathmore  and  Gray  were  for  Norrie,  the  split  among  the 
Jacobites  was  as  manifest  as  in  any  rural  parish  of  the  Kirk. 
Rattray  of  Craighall  was  a  man  of  family  and  property,  but  was 
strong  for  Gadderar  and  his  ritual,  and  was  regarded,  therefore, 
by  the  bishops  in  general  as  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  Cause. 

After  Gadderar's  compromise  with  the  bishops  about  "  mixing," 
Lockhart  had  been  sanguine  enough  to  hope  that  the  bishops 
"  would  have  lived  like  brethren  not  only  of  the  Church,  but  of 
affliction."  ^^     But  when  Bishop  Fullarton  took   the   side  of  what 


332         THE   EPISCOPAL   CHURCH   RENT   BY   FACTIONS. 

we  may  style  the  party  of  the  popular  "  call "  and  the  right  of  the 
majority  of  Presbyters  in  Angus,  the  fire  broke  out  again.  Lock- 
hart  was  present  at  the  discussion  with  the  College  of  Bishops  as 
to  the  claims  of  the  ritualistic  Rattray  and  the  anti-ritualistic  Norrie, 
and  asked  "  in  whom  they  thought  the  power  of  electing  a  bishop 
was  lodged  ?  "  This  was  a  terrible  question  to  throw  into  a  clerical 
assembly.  Lockhart,  of  course,  cared  only  for  the  unity  of  the 
Cause,  but  Panmure  blazed  up  and  talked  about  the  Primitive 
Church.  The  Dean  and  Chapter,  he  said,  had  the  right  to  elect, 
but,  in  the  absence  of  Deans  and  Chapters,  they  must  look  to  the 
example  of  the  Primitive  Church,  which  required  the  concurrence 
of  the  majority  of  the  clergy  and  the  approbation  of  the  people. 
Gadderar,  FuUarton,  and  Rattray  argued  on  the  same  side. 
Lockhart  said  that  this  plan  was  an  excellent  plan ;  that  he 
reverenced  the  ancient  Fathers,  but  did  not  think  them  infallible ; 
and  that  the  daily  example  of  discords  caused  by  popular  calls 
among  the  Presbyterians  ought  to  be  a  warning. 

By  law  the  king  could  nominate  the  bishop  by  a  congi  d'elire  to 
the  Chapter,  "  who,  again,  were  obliged  to  elect  the  very  person  the 
king  named."  In  this  case  the  objections  to  Norrie  were  frivolous. 
Norrie  ought  to  be  appointed,  and  there  an  end  to  it ;  and  the  bishops, 
except  the  recalcitrant  three,  agreed.  Here  Lockhart  committed 
James  against  the  "  Usages,"  which,  as  he  thought,  had  a  look  of 
Popery,  and  afforded  a  handle  to  the  Presbyterians.  Norrie  was  ap- 
pointed, though  FuUarton,  as  Primus,  refused  to  sign ;  while  "  the 
Presbyterians  laughed  and  rejoiced  at  these  divisions,"  which  were 
no  longer  their  own  exclusive  property. ^^  Lockhart,  therefore,  by  re- 
quest of  the  Trustees  of  James,  wrote  to  him  (December  8,  1724), 
saying  that  "the  utmost  height  of  party  rage"  had  been  attained. 
The  Trustees  asked  James  to  write  to  the  College  of  Bishops  to 
settle  no  prelate  in  a  diocese  till  the  name  had  been  submitted  to 
himself,  with  a  report  on  the  sentiments  of  the  district.  James 
was  mainly  occupied,  as  we  shall  see  later,  with  appointing  Hay 
as  his  secretary,  and  was  obliged  to  announce  that  he  could  no 
longer  trust  Mar,  whose  honesty  lay  under  suspicion,  nor  any  who 
dealt  with  him.  Whether  these  steps  were  justified  or  not  we  shall 
later  try  to  discover ;  but  they  rent  the  party  politically,  no  less  than 
the  usages,  and  the  question  of  patronage  divided  it  ecclesiastically.^*' 

Two  of  James's  Trustees,  Lord  Dun  and  Sir  John  Erskine,  sided 
with  Mar  as  a  kinsman,  and  the  task  of  Lockhart  was  difficult  or 


RITUALISTS   AND   ANTI-RITUALISTS    (1725).  333 

impossible,  Mar  persuading  his  friends  that  he  was  the  victim  of 
false  charges  by  the  exiled  Atterbury.  On  March  21,  1725,  James 
wrote  to  the  bishops  in  the  terms  suggested  by  his  Trustees,^^ 
and  the  question  was  to  provide  a  successor  to  Fullarton,  now 
old  and  infirm,  as  Bishop  of  Edinburgh  and  Primate.  Rattray 
was  proposed  on  one  hand,  Gillan,  a  friend  of  Lockhart,  on  the 
other,^*^  as  successor  to  Bishop  Irvine  (December  1725).  Lockhart 
asked  James  to  appoint  Gillan  to  be  a  bishop,  with  the  assent  of 
the  Trustees  and  several  of  the  bishops,  and,  personally,  thought 
Gillan  the  best  man  for  the  Primacy,  as  the  bishops  were  either 
"  hot-headed "  or  old  and  infirm.  Ecclesiastical  strife  in  Angus 
was  being  quieted  by  Strathmore  (April  30,  1726).  James,  by 
this  advice,  wrote  to  the  bishops  (May  i,  1726),  advising  that 
Duncan  or  Cant  should  reside  in  Edinburgh  to  do  FuUarton's 
duty.^^  He  desired  them  to  consecrate  Gillan,  and  reiterated  that 
they  should  appoint  no  bishop  to  a  district  without  consulting  him 
through  his  Trustees  (July  20,  1726).-*' 

Hence  came  trouble.  The  suffering  Church  was  divided  into 
the  party  of  Ritualists  and  friends  of  popular  election  of  bishops 
(right  of  Presbyters  with  consent  of  the  populace  to  elect  their 
bishops)  on  one  hand ;  and  of  anti-Ritualists,  adhering  to  the  king's 
legal  right  to  send  a  congi  (Teiire,  on  the  other  hand.  The  lay 
Trustees  of  James  sided  with  the  latter  party.  Mar's  faction  were 
with  the  Ritualists, — his  kinsfolk  and  others  who  could  not  believe 
that  he  had  sold  Atterbury  to  the  English  Government  in  1722, 
and  who  merely  wanted  to  disturb  all  James's  measures,  while 
Hay,  now  Jacobite  Earl  of  Inverness,  held,  as  secretary,  the  post 
in  which  Mar  had  so  much  distinguished  himself.  The  College 
of  Bishops  was  mainly  anti-ritualistic,  and  Bishop  Miller  desired 
them  to  imitate  the  Presbyterian  method  of  censures  against 
Gadderar  and  Rattray.  This  Miller,  a  violent  person,  wished  to 
succeed  Fullarton,  and  therefore,  when  Gillan  was  spoken  of  as 
FuUarton's  successor,  he  suddenly  felt  pricked  in  conscience  as 
one  who,  by  accepting  royal  patronage,  had  betrayed  the  rights 
of  the  Church.  For  more  reputable  reasons  Bishop  Robert  Keith 
was  opposed,  and  helped  to  organise  an  agitation  against  Gillan. 
A  Remonstrance  was  written  on  the  good  old  lines  of  ancient 
injuries  to  the  power  and  rights  of  the  Church.  Now  was  the  time 
to  regain  them,  now  that  King  James's  "  back  was  at  the  wa' "  ! 
They  also  accused  James  of  breaking  promise  when  he  nominated 


334      BISHOPS   "SERVING  THE  COVENANTED  CAUSE"  (1726). 

Gillan  (as  a  bishop  not  to  a  district),  which  he  had  done  by  the 
advice  of  his  lay  Trustees.  Bishop  Duncan  severely  rebuked  the 
authors  of  this  chivalrous  Remonstrance  when  they  showed  it  to 
him.  If  they  presented  it  to  the  College,  he  said  that  he  would 
throw  it  into  the  fire,  "that  it  might  not  in  after  times  appear  in 
judgement  against  them."  The  ^'■furiosi''  indignantly  asked.  How 
would  James  behave  if  on  the  throne,  when,  as  an  exile,  he  had 
sent  a  conge  d^elire  for  Gillan,  which  Lockhart  was  to  present? 
Lockhart  declares  that  a  Mr  Middleton  and  "  his  gang,"  of  the 
Ritualistic  party,  betrayed  to  the  British  Government  his  channel 
of  correspondence  with  James.  If  so,  we  may  admire  the  frenzy 
of  religious  passion. 

Lockhart  remonstrated  with  Keith.  The  conduct  of  himself 
and  his  party  was  as  ungenerous  as  treasonable.  "  None  would 
dare  own  their  measures,  were  the  king  on  the  throne.  They 
injured  the  king  much  in  saying  that  he  had  broke  his  promise, 
or  that  Gillan  was  only  recommended  by  me."  He  assured  Keith 
that  James  had  no  design  of  making  Gillan  Bishop  of  Edinburgh, 
"  except  with  the  previous  advice  and  approbation  of  the  College 
and  presbyters  of  that  diocese."  To  a  proposal  by  Keith  that 
the  whole  affair  should  be  referred  to  Lord  Erskine  (a  Marite) 
and  Mr  James  Graham,  Lockhart  indignantly  replied  that  the  king 
had  not  fallen  so  low  as  to  strike  a  bargain  "  with  a  parcel  of 
little  factious  priests  in  the  diocese  of  Edinburgh,  who,  as  they 
were  serving  the  Covenanted  cause,  should  change  their  black  gowns 
into  brown  cloaks,  and  I  did  not  doubt  they'd  be  received  into 
the  godly  party,  unless  ecclesiastic  had  the  same  fate  with  State 
traitors,  in  being  despised  by  those  they  served."  ^^  Lockhart 
was  very  well  able  to  find  expression  for  his  sentiments.  Gillan's 
consecration  was  put  off  lest  the  Episcopalian  friends  of  spiritual 
independence  should  accuse  the  College  of  Bishops  to  the  Govern- 
ment. But  two  other  bishops  were  secretly  consecrated,  while 
the  "  holy  tribe,"  as  Lockhart  calls  them,  displayed  passionate 
extremities  of  rage. 

The  old  storm  of  Church  and  State  has  seldom  vexed  a  smaller 
area.  The  instant  result  was  that  Lockhart's  mode  of  communicat- 
ing with  James  was  discovered,  and,  in  February  1727,  letters  to 
him  from  Rome  were  seized  at  Leith.  In  May  the  Episcopal 
clergy  of  Edinburgh  elected  the  worthy  Miller  as  their  diocesan, 
being  backed  by  Gadderar  and   the   Ritualistic  party.     Corsar,   a 


LOCK  HART   IS   BETRAYED   (1727).  335 

Jacobite  agent,  was  arrested,  apparently  by  Islay's  orders,  that 
Lockhart  might  be  warned  of  his  own  peril, — so  Islay  himself  in- 
formed Lockhart.  On  Friday,  March  17,  1727,  Lockhart,  having 
arranged  for  a  ship  to  meet  him  on  the  English  north-east  coast, 
left  Carnwath  in  disguise,  stayed  at  Stobo  on  Tweed,  wandered  by 
moorland  paths  across  the  Border,  reached  an  honest  gentleman's 
house  near  Durham,  and,  setting  sail  on  April  8,  arrived  at  Dort  on 
April  15.  Meanwhile  a  party  of  the  diocese  of  Edinburgh  owned 
Miller,  another  faction  stood  by  Freebairn,  and  both  parties  in 
the  Church  took  to  consecrating  bishops.  Miller  died  in  a  few 
months ;  but  the  feud  survived  him,  rending  the  Church  Episcopal 
and  Jacobite  even  as  the  Church  Presbyterian  was  rent,  and  yet 
more  bitterly,  for  the  Usages  caused  far  more  bitterness  than  the 
Smytonite  controversy. 

Here  we  may  leave  the  ecclesiastical  distresses  of  the  Jacobite 
party  and  investigate  its  secular  fortunes,  and  those  of  Scotland, 
after  1720.  The  machinations  of  the  Jacobites  in  1722  were 
directed  towards  England,  not  Scotland,  and  affected  Scotland  only 
in  one  respect.  The  conduct  of  Mar  in  1722  caused  him  to  be 
suspected  of  the  basest  villainy  :  the  suspicion,  for  long  scorned  by 
James,  made  Mar  impossible  as  his  Mmister  so  far  as  the  English 
Jacobites  were  concerned,  and  finally  compelled  the  king  to  appoint 
new  Ministers,  Murray  and  Hay  (Jacobite  Earls  of  Dunbar  and 
Inverness).  The  whole  influence  of  Mar,  and  of  those  who  believed 
in  his  innocence,  was  directed,  or  at  least  was  believed  to  be 
directed,  to  the  discrediting  and  ruining  of  Murray  and  Hay.  The 
queen,  Clementina,  was  of  Mar's  party,  and  conceived,  for  various 
feminine  reasons  which  she  would  never  state  definitely,  a  violent 
hatred  of  Lord  and  Lady  Inverness.  She  was  backed  by  the 
Roman  clergy,  for  the  detested  Ministers  were  Protestants ;  her 
conduct  and  her  wrongs  were  buzzed  abroad  through  Europe,  and 
as  she  was  a  pretty  and  charming  though  apparently  hysterical 
woman,  even  in  Scotland  the  party  sided  with  her  against  her 
husband.  Thus  from  1722  onwards  the  Jacobites  in  England  and 
Scotland  were  broken,  soured,  irritable,  and  helpless. 

In  Paris,  early  in  1720,  Stair  had  quarrelled  with  Law  of  Lauris- 
ton,  when  in  his  glory  as  promoter  of  the  Mississippi  scheme. 
Law,  as  Craggs  wrote  to  Stair  (April  14,  1720),  was  "in  possession 
of  all  the  money  in  Trance,"  and  could  put  great  pressure  on 
England.2^     By  May  Stair's  recall  was  decided  :  he  was  to  be  sue- 


336  MAR   ACCUSED  OF   TREACHERY   (1722-1724). 

ceeded  by  Sir  Robert  Sutton  as  ambassador  to  France.  It  was, 
therefore,  now  with  Sutton,  not  Stair,  that  Mar  had  to  do.  He 
continued  to  reside  near  Paris,  and  protested  to  Sutton  that  he  was 
not  concerned  in  Jacobite  pohtics  (July  28,  1720).-^  "I  know  my 
duty  better  than  not  rigorously  to  observe  the  engagements  I  gave 
upon  my  being  allowed  to  come  into  France.  Sutton,  on  July  31, 
told  Craggs  that  he  did  not  believe  in  Mar's  assurances,  and  asked 
how  he  was  to  behave  to  the  Earl  (Jacobite  "  Duke  ").  On  October 
30,  1720,  Sutton  writes  to  Craggs:  "  I  am  very  certainly  assured  that 
Mar  complains  that  the  promises  which  he  pretends  to  have  been 
made  him  relating  to  a  pension  (which  I  suppose  to  be  the  allow- 
ance granted  by  his  Majesty  to  his  Lady)  are  not  performed,  and 
declares  that  in  such  case  he  shall  look  upon  himself  as  disengaged 
from  the  parole  he  has  given.  I  have  no  orders  concerning  him." 
These  complaints  and  threats  by  ]\Iar  are  later  mentioned. 

By  February  3,  1721,  Mar  seems  to  have  succeeded  in  getting 
the  British  Government  to  allow  him  his  much -desired  pension. 
On  that  date  he  wrote  to  James  in  Rome,  announcing  his  accept- 
ance of  the  English  offers.  He  received  ;;^35oo  a-year,  and  he 
states  the  conditions  as  merely  his  ceasing  to  occupy  himself  with 
James's  affairs  :  he  had  long  pleaded  fatigue,  bad  health,  and  the 
necessity  of  seeking  a  more  northern  climate  than  that  of  Rome.-* 
James's  reply,  writes  Dr  Glover,  the  editor  of  Atterbury's  part  in 
the  Stuart  MSS.,  "  is  indeed  remarkable  as  exhibiting  the  kindliness 
of  James's  disposition,  and  perhaps  more  so  for  the  blind  confidence 
he  still  reposed  in  Mar,  whom  he  assures  at  the  conclusion  that 
"  nothing  can  alter  my  sentiments  towards  you,  and  that  my  con- 
fidence in  your  doing  your  best  on  all  occasions  to  serve  me  is 
entire."  ^^ 

James,  in  fact,  was  attached  to  Mar,  and  saw  in  him  a  man  who 
had  lost  all  for  the  Cause.  He  rejoiced  in  his  recovering  his 
fortune,  as  he  rejoiced  when  Sir  James  Erskine  left  his  service, 
receiving  a  pardon,  and  returning  to  Scotland  and  to  his  silver 
mine.  It  did  not  occur  to  James  that,  in  return  for  ^3500  a-year, 
the  English  Government  expected  from  Mar  distinguished  services, 
as  they  announced  in  17 19,  when  Mar  went  to  Geneva,  that  they 
did.  The  confidence  may  have  been  blind,  but  it  was  the  blind- 
ness of  a  generous  nature  which  thought  no  evil.  Meanwhile 
Murray,  who  since  Mar  left  James  had  been  doing  his  duty,  left 
him  in   1721,  and  went  to  France,  where  he  had  a  bitter  quarrel 


ATTERBURY'S   PLOT   AND   MAR   (1722).  337 

with  Campbell  of  Glendaruel.  Campbell,  "a  great  friend  and 
creature  of  Mar,"  got  up  an  address  from  the  Clans  to  James 
against  Murray,  who  was  accused  of  superseding  Mar,  which  was 
the  cause  of  Murray's  dismissal  from  James's  Court  (Crawford  to 
Carteret,  January  21,  i722).2°  As  Mar,  on  receipt  of  his  pension, 
was  bound  to  cease  to  work  for  James,  Mar's  jealousy  of  Murray 
is  not  very  intelligible.  The  hatred,  however,  lasted,  and  broke  up 
the  Jacobite  party. 

Meanwhile,  the  extraordinary  thing  is  that  Mar  remains  in  Paris, 
and,  in  1722,  takes  an  active  part  in  Jacobite  affairs;  while  one  of 
his  letters  sent  by  the  common  post,  contrary  to  express  and  dis- 
tinct orders,  is  the  source  from  which  the  guilt  of  conspiracy  was 
fixed  on  Bishop  Atterbury.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Report  of  the 
Lord's  Committee  on  Atterbury's  case  the  pension  is  said  to  have 
been  stopped.  But,  even  if  it  were,  that  did  not  divert  suspicion 
from  Mar.  People  argued,  "  He  has  arranged  to  have  his  letter, 
fixing  guilt  on  Atterbury,  intercepted,  just  that  he  may  win  back 
his  pension."  Even  so,  and  despite  the  outcries  of  Atterbury  and 
the  English  Jacobites,  two  years  passed  before  James,  without  any 
fracas^  quietly  dropped  Mar.  Then  broke  out  all  the  evil  passions 
of  the  party,  carrying  with  them  Queen  Clementina. 

The  year  1722  saw  a  long  train  of  gunpowder  explode,  without 
harming  any  one  except  the  Jacobites  who  laid  it.  They  had  a 
little  squadron  of  three  vessels,  commanded  by  Nicholas  Wogan, 
Morgan,  and  Galway,  with  another  Wogan.  These  ships,  one  of 
which  was  to  have  conveyed  Charles  XII.  to  Scotland,  while  another 
was  to  have  conveyed  Ormonde  in  1 7 1 9,  cruised  about  the  Medi- 
terranean, "seeking  for  a  mischief"  in  the  Scots  phrase.  In  June 
1 72 1  Morgan  wrote  to  Nicholas  Wogan  that  a  mischief  had  been 
found  :  Sir  Harry  Goring,  a  rich  baronet  of  Sussex,  and  Dillon  in 
Paris,  had  a  piece  of  business  in  hand.  It  was  an  original  scheme 
for  using  a  reputable  set  of  smugglers  named  "The  Waltham 
Blacks."  Atterbury  had  recommended  Goring ;  and  Atterbury's 
secretary,  the  Rev.  George  Kelly,  a  non-juring  clergyman,  six  feet 
high,  with  bright  blue  eyes,  was  deep  in  all  these  schemes  of  "  the 
young  merchants,"  as  Atterbury  calls  the  Wogans,  Morgan,  and 
Christopher  Layer,  a  desperately  adventurous  barrister.  This  Mr 
Layer  visited  James  secretly,  at  Rome,  by  a  private  door  and  back- 
stair.  He  brought  a  list  of  loyal  Norfolk  gentlemen,  was  introduced 
to  Queen  Clementina,  and  obtained  the  royal  pair  as  sponsors  to 

VOL.   IV.  Y 


338  layer's  plot  discovered  (1722). 

his  child  in  baptism.  Lord  North,  a  distinguished  British  General 
in  Marlborough's  wars,  with  the  Duchess  of  Ormonde,  acted  as 
proxy  sponsors,  and  Layer,  pursuing  his  nursery  intrigues,  knitted 
a  cabal  with  Mrs  Hughes,  the  Welsh  nurse  of  poor  little  Prince 
Charles  Edward.  Layer  became  acquainted  with  Lord  Orrery  and 
Lord  North,  two,  with  Atterbury  and  Arran,  of  James's  English 
Trustees.  Atterbury  distrusted  and  tried  to  shake  off  "  the  young 
merchants,"  but,  great  and  small,  they  were  all  in  the  network  of 
the  shifting  and  kaleidoscopic  Jacobite  plot,  mainly  directed  by 
Parson  Kelly,  for  the  Bishop  was  in  the  worst  of  health.  The 
Goring  smugglers  were  a  "hellish  crew,"  wrote  honest  Captain 
Morgan.  Ormonde  and  Dillon  were  prevented  from  bringing  a 
considerable  mixed  invading  force,  and,  early  in  1722,  the  plan  was 
for  Ormonde  to  cause  King  George's  troops  to  be  false  to  their  salt, 
and  thus  to  do  the  business  with  no  foreign  assistance.  Prince 
Charles,  aged  two,  was  to  head  the  Scots ! 

The  plot  was  revealed,  probably  by  the  Abbe  Dubois,  and  news 
was  sent  from  Paris  on  April  29,  1722.  On  May  19  Mr  Kelly  was 
arrested  in  his  rooms  in  London.  For  some  reason,  a  Colonel  in 
King  George's  Guards  was  with  him,  but  took  no  part  in  the  affair. 
Mr  Kelly  drew  his  sword,  kept  the  point  facing  the  messengers,  who 
dared  not  pass  the  door,  and,  with  his  left  hand,  burned  all  his 
papers  in  the  flame  of  a  candle.  One  man  tried  to  enter.  Kelly 
lunged  at  him,  and  the  messenger,  as  he  said,  "  parried  the  thrust 
with  the  door."  But  what  caused  the  arrest  of  Kelly,  soon  followed 
by  that  of  Layer,  in  whose  possession  was  found  a  sketch  for  a  plot 
to  seize  the  Tower,  the  Bank,  and  the  king,  and  raise  the  mob  ? 
The  plot  was  egregiously  absurd,  and  hinged  on  the  collection  of 
200  men  who  should  enter  the  Tower  as  if  relieving  guard, 
and  take  possession  of  it.  But  Lord  North's  name  was  impli- 
cated, as  General,  in  this  crazy  design,  and  a  force  was  camped  on 
Hyde  Park  to  repress  an  insurrection  represented  by  Layer  and  by 
a  beery  ex-sergeant,  Matthew  Plunket,  whom  Layer  "  encouraged  " 
by  occasional  gifts  of  half-a-crown  or  five  shillings. 

The  arrest  of  Kelly  and  of  Atterbury  was  led  up  to  in  the  follow- 
ing way  :  the  affair  is  very  ramified,  and  re(juires  close  attention. 
On  January  3,  1722,  James  replied  to  a  memorial  received  from 
England.  After  "unanimous  and  mature  deliberation,"  his  English 
friends  saw  the  necessity  of  procuring  a  sum  of  money,  which,  with 
what  he  himself  could  supply,  James  deemed  adequate.     He  would, 


atterbury's  letters  and  mar's  reply  (1722).    339 

in  answer  to  their  request,  send  commissions  for  North,  Lansdowne, 
Strafford,  Arran,  brother  of  Ormonde,  and  blanks  for  Colonels, 
and  he  wrote  to  Ormonde,  Lansdowne,  Dillon,  and  Mar,  who  thus 
must  have  been  intriguing  for  him  in  1721,  the  year  in  which  he 
obtained  his  pension  from  King  George.-"  By  March  16,  1722, 
Mar  wrote  to  James  saying  that  the  English  Jacobites  were  unsatis- 
factory in  their  replies,  and,  as  to  money,  did  not  even  promise 
any.  The  Five  Trustees  (in  Lockhart's  phrase)  in  England  were 
quarrelling  among  themselves.  Atterbury  would,  Mar  was  sure, 
object  to  Dr  Freind's  part  in  managing  the  scheme  (March  23). 
But  the  circumstances  might  unite  Atterbury  and  Oxford,  who,  in 
Mar's  opinion,  ought  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  party  in  England. 
As  if  they  had  not  enough  of  Oxford  in  17 14!  The  "young 
merchants,"  the  Wogans  and  the  rest,  were  of  undoubted  folly, 
and  Atterbury  and  Oxford  were  to  manage  all. 

Atterbury,  on  April  20  (O.S.),  wrote  to  James,  Mar,  and  Dillon, 
and  certainly  the  letters  to  Mar  and  Dillon  reached  their  destina- 
tions, and  Mar  replied  to  Atterbury.-^  Atterbury  had  said  that  it 
was  imperatively  necessary  to  send  no  letters  through  the  post, 
especially  since  the  death  of  Lord  Sunderland.  This  was  in  the 
letter  to  Dillon,  with  whom  Mar  was  working.  To  Mar,  Atterbury 
signed  himself  "T.  Illington,"  to  Dillon  he  signed  "T.  Jones." 
Before  Atterbury's  letters  of  April  20,  O.S.,  reached  their  des- 
tinations, they  had  been  intercepted  and  copied  for  the  English 
Government.  They  were  in  cypher,  and  they  were  decyphered. 
Now  Dr  Glover,  editor  of  the  correspondence,  argues  that  either 
the  decypherers  of  the  English  Government  were  "extremely 
clever,"  or  that  the  cypher  was  betrayed — by  Mar,  He  holds  to 
the  second  opinion,  for  there  are  a  few  variations  in  the  decypher- 
ment  from  the  rendering  which  the  key  to  the  cypher  would  have 
given,  "  and  these  variations  are,  seemingly,  employed  with  no 
other  view  than  to  keep  up  the  delusion  of  their  having  been 
decyphered  without  any  extraneous  assistance."  The  errors  are 
mere  "blinds,"  and  nobody  who  was  clever  enough  to  decypher 
the  rest  without  a  blunder  could  have  been  puzzled  in  the  few 
cases  where,  for  example,  "openly"  is  rendered  "out  of  hand," 
or  an  easy  word  is  left  a  blank. ^^ 

As  to  the  decyphering,  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  investiga- 
tion examined  the  decypherers,  who  maintained  that  their  work 
was  honest  and  unassisted,  and  that  they  had  previously  decyphered 


340         mar's  behaviour  to  atterbury  (1722). 

letters  in  a  manner  proved  correct  when  the  Government,  later, 
procured  a  copy  of  the  Jacobite  key.  They  explained  the  method 
of  George  Kelly's  cypher,  which  was  of  a  naked  simplicity.  "  The 
further  the  initial  letter  of  any  word  is  removed  from  the  letter  A, 
the  higher  the  number  is:  thus  "Xerxes"  would  begin  "24." 
They  had  decyphered  the  papers  when  far  remote  from  each 
other,  and  their  interpretations  had  been  identical, — even  when 
they  harmoniously  failed  in  the  same  simple  cases, — so  it  appears. ^"^ 
However  the  letters  were  decyphered  (and  there  appears  to  be  no 
valid  evidence  that  the  key  was  betrayed),  the  letters  were  not 
sufficient  to  convict  Atterbury  of  being  T.  Illington  or  T.  Jones. 
They  were  not  written  in  his  hand.  But  on  May  11/22  Mar, 
signing  "  lo.  Motfield,"  wrote  to  Atterbury.  He  began  by  acknow- 
ledging Atterbury's  letter  of  April  20,  O.S.  He  condoled  with 
him  on  the  loss  of  his  wife  (which  Atterbury  had  not  mentioned ; 
Mar  heard  of  it  from  George  Kelly),  he  regretted  Atterbury's  own 
"  distemper." 

These  facts  proved  that  T.  Illington  was  a  gentleman  in  bad 
health,  who  had  just  lost  his  wife.  Atterbury,  after  the  facts  came 
out  at  his  trial  (for  of  course  Mar's  letter  to  him  had  been  inter- 
cepted), interpreted  Mar's  conduct  thus:  Mar,  in  1724,  put  into 
Atterbury's  hands  a  number  of  letters.  Among  them,  Atterbury 
declares,  were  letters  to  Mar  from  Carteret.  Thence  it  appeared 
that  "when  Mr  Churchill  was  here"  (in  Paris),  "  May  1722,  to  urge 
him  to  discover  what  he  knew  of  the  plot  on  the  account  of  '  the 
favours  conferred  on  him  by  King  George  for  sofne  time  past* 
(those  are  the  words  of  the  letters  written  to  him  by  Lord  Carteret 
in  his  own  name,  and  those  of  Lord  Townshend  and  Mr  Wal- 
pole),  it  appears,  I  say,  from  the  very  letters  he  imparted  to  me, 
that  he  had  several  private  meetings  with  Churchill  by  himself," 
of  which  Atterbury  gives  proof  from  the  letters.  These  letters 
certainly  proved  deliberately  secret  meetings  between  Mar  and 
Churchill. 

Further,  on  the  same  evidence,  Churchill  was  sent  to  Mar  as 
soon  as  Atterbury's  letters  of  April  20  had  been  decyphered  in 
London.  Reaching  Paris  on  May  10,  he  told  Mar  (as  Mar  himself 
had  owned)  that  the  letters  had  been  intercepted.  After  that.  Mar 
and  Churchill  had  many  secret  conferences,  and  Mar  wrote 
(May  11/22)  the  letter  to  Atterbury  which   "owns  the  receipt   of 


WAS   MAR   FOOLISH    OR   TREACHEROUS?  341 

mine,  and  describes  me  by  my  function  [Mar  had  only  said,  '  You 
know  such  things  ' — religious  duties — '  much  better  than  I '],  the  late 
death  of  my  wife,  and  a  fit  of  the  gout  ['distemper'  in  Mar],  from 
which  I  was  just  recovering, — characters  that  agreed  to  no  other 
person  in  the  kingdom  but  myself."  Moreover,  there  was  no 
"  colour  of  business  "  in  Mar's  letter.  Mar  therefore  wrote  it  merely 
to  identify  Atterbury,  and  sent  it,  which  Atterbury  had  forbidden, 
by  the  common  post.  So  Atterbury  wrote  to  James  (July  31,  1724). 
Mar  might  have  replied,  "I  wrote  on  May  11/22  in  the  mere  good- 
ness of  my  heart,  and  sent  the  letter  by  the  common  post,  because 
it  had  '  no  colour  of  business.'  I  do  not  see  that  when  I  said  you 
knew  better  about  religious  things  than  I,  I  pointed  you  out  as 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  Many  people  in  England  are  more  versed  in 
religion  than  I,  many  of  them  may  have  just  lost  their  wives,  many 
may  also  have  a  *  distemper '  of  one  kind  or  another,  and  many 
distempered,  bereaved,  religious  people  may  have  written  cyphered 
letters  on  April  20,  O.S." 

Unluckily  for  this  defence,  which  does  not  improve  as  it  advances, 
the  Lord's  Committee,  in  Atterbury's  case,  did  not  take  the  same 
view  of  it,  but  cited  Mar's  letter  as  evidence  to  prove  Atterbury's 
identity,  to  prove  that  he  was  the  conspirator  Illington.  They  said 
that  the  religious  compliment  "seems  to  point  out  the  character 
and  function  of  the  person  addressed,"  while  the  Bishop's  illness 
and  bereavement  coincided. ^^  There  was  plenty  of  other  circum- 
stantial evidence  against  Atterbury,  especially  the  mention  of  his 
lame  dog.  Harlequin,  a  present  from  Mar.  Atterbury  was  most 
deservedly  exiled,  and  George  Kelly  lay  for  many  years  in  the 
Tower.  Thence  he  escaped  in  circumstances  of  pleasing  good 
taste,  not  breaking  his  parole,  under  which  he  was  allowed  to  take 
drives  for  his  health,  and  from  1745  to  his  death,  apparently,  he 
was  closely  attached  to  Prince  Charles,  He  is  not  the  dissipated 
Father  Kelly,  with  whom  he  is  often  confused. 

The  reader  has  now  the  opportunity  of  forming  his  own  opinion 
as  to  whether  Mar  sold  Atterbury,  or  whether,  in  his  writing  and 
posting  his  letter  of  May  11/22,  1722,  he  only  displayed  the 
same  fatuous  heedlessness  as  he  showed  in  giving  to  Atterbury, 
among  a  mass  of  Jacobite  manuscripts,  the  letter  of  Carteret  to 
himself  and  his  notes  to  Churchill.  In  either  case,  after  Atter- 
bury's letter  of  July  31,  1724,  to  James,  the  king  could  not  but 


342  MAR'S  IMBECILE   SCHEME   (1723). 

drop  his  connection  with  Mar.  If  not  a  traitor,  he  was  incon- 
ceivably indiscreet  and  unsafe.^^  * 

In  other  respects,  between  1722  and  1724,  Mar  absolutely 
demonstrated  that  he  was  either  a  traitor  or  incompetent.  In 
1723,  before  James  had  to  drop  his  relations  with  Mar,  that 
intriguer,  in  James's  own  words,  "had  been,  unknown  to  me, 
negotiating,  with  the  late  Duke  of  Orleans,  a  Scheme  utterly  de- 
structive to  our  native  country.  I  should  think "  (James  wrote 
in  1725)  "I  were  not  a  little  failing  to  our  country  and  to 
myself  did  I  ever  trust  or  employ  anybody  who  had  a  share  in 
so  base  a  thing."  ^^ 

Mar's  scheme,  unknown  to  James,  was  drawn  up,  done  into 
French,  and  presented  through  Dillon  to  the  Duke  of  Orleans. 
The  paper  was  then  conveyed  by  Lord  Southesk,  who  did  not 
know  its  contents,  to  James  at  Rome.  The  king  was  so  affected 
by  the  plan  of  Mar's  Memorial  that  he  thought  it  wiser  and  better 
never  even  to  acknowledge  its  receipt,  so  that  there  should  be  no 
evidence  that  he  had  so  much  as  listened  to  "  so  base  a  thing." 
Had  it  come  out  that  the  plan  had  been  considered  by  James, 
he  would  have  been  utterly  ruined  in  the  esteem  of  his  English 
friends.  Mar's  enemies  believed  that  he  drew  up  his  Memorial 
for  this  very  purpose,  by  way  of  serving  the  English  Government. 
This  appears  far  less  probable  than  that  he  was  a  foolish  and 
desperate  schemer ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  author  of  the  pro- 
posed plan,  the  person  who  brought  it  into  politics  by  presenting 
it,  without  James's  knowledge,  to  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  whence  it 
was  more  likely  than  not  to  reach  the  English  Government,  could 
not  be  retained  in  office  by  any  prince  possessed  of  reason.  With 
that  extraordinary  turn  for  misunderstanding  and  misrepresenting 
James,  which  is  part  of  his  misfortunes.  Lord  Stanhope  says,  "  So 
far  was  Mar  from  recovering  James's  favour,  that  this  Prince,  like 
all  weak  men,  ran  into  the  opposite  extreme,  and  looked  with 
coldness  and  distrust  on  many  of  his  most  faithful  followers,  on 
account  of  their  personal  intimacy  with  Mar,  even  where  that 
intimacy  had  been  formed  by  his  own  direction,  or  resulted  from 
his  own  partiality."^* 

*  I  coii]d  not  give  a  verdict  of  Guilty  af^ainst  Mar.  The  circumstances  were 
so  suspicious  as  to  mal<c  it  impossible  for  Jnines  lo  employ  Mar,  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  Mar  was  rewarded  by  the  British  Government,  nor  is  it  certain  that 
Dillon  told  him  of  Atterbury's  prohibition  to  send  letters  by  the  common  post. 


JAMES   OBLIGED   TO   DISCARD   MAR.  343 

Very  slowly,  very  reluctantly,  James's  eyes  had  been  opened  to 
the  character  of  Mar,  whom  the  Master  of  Sinclair  had  appreciated 
pretty  correctly.  He  took  an  English  pension  ;  James  permitted 
it  and  congratulated  him.  His  astounding  folly,  if  not  his  perfidy, 
ruined  Atterbury,  and  made  all  English  Jacobites  detest  Mar. 
James  did  not  cease  to  trust  till  Atterbury,  in  exile,  laid  the 
exact  circumstances  before  him  ;  and  then  came  Mar's  scheme, 
revealed  to  Orleans  before  James  heard  of  it,  and  in  itself  an 
ideal  example  of  reckless  incompetence.  Later,  Mar's  business  was, 
or  was  thought  to  be,  to  excite  faction, — to  set  Queen  Clementina 
against  her  husband,  to  irritate  the  clans,  and  to  traduce  the  serv- 
ants. Hay  and  Murray,  whom  James  now  had  about  him.  James's 
weakness  would  have  lain  in  not  warning  his  friends  against  Mar. 

The  Memorial  of  Mar,  shown  to  the  Duke  of  Orleans  at  the 
end  of  September  1723  and  then  forwarded  to  James  at  Rome, 
exists  in  an  abstract  by  the  honest  James  Edgar,  the  king's 
private  secretary.^^  The  French  text,  in  full,  is  published  by  the 
Hon.  Stuart  Erskine,  and  is  even  more  idiotic  than  Edgar's  abstract 
enables  us  to  understand.^*^ 

Mar  begins  by  saying  that  England  not  unreasonably  boasts 
that  she  holds  the  balance  of  power.  They  have  "greatly  dimin- 
ished the  extent  of  the  French  Empire "  in  Marlborough's  wars. 
In  a  war  with  Germans  anxious  to  recover  Alsace,  King  George 
would  take  part  against  France.  Place  James  on  the  English 
throne,  and  French  interests  will  be  his  interests.  But,  says  Mar, 
it  will  be  objected.  Parliament  will  force  him  by  its  capricious 
humours  to  side  against  France.  Parliament  holds  Scotland  and 
Ireland  in  subjection,  and  the  English  people  hate  France  with 
an  ancient  and  inveterate  hatred.  A  standing  army  in  England 
might  prove  a  remedy,  but  the  people  would  not  endure  it.  The 
remedy  is  to  restore  the  liberty  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  :  they, 
united,  will  support  James  against  England  (of  course  to  the  advan- 
tage of  France).  The  king  will  be  his  own  master,  "  and  more 
than  ever  obliged  to  preserve  an  inviolable  union  with  France." 
Scotland  and  Ireland  will  be  attached  to  the  French  king  as  the 
guardian  of  their  freedom,  "  and  thus  these  kingdoms  will  be 
more  useful  to  him  than  if  one  of  them  was  his  very  own." 

(Presbyterian  Scotland  was  not  likely  to  accept  abject  depend- 
ence on  idolatrous  France  :  if  Mar  really  believed  that,  his  in- 
capacity was  abject.) 


344  "so  BASE  A  thing!" 

With  an  English  king  in  the  position  suggested,  "France  will 
be  for  ever  free  from  fear  of  her  old  enemies  and  rivals,  the 
English."  To  produce  these  happy  results,  so  welcome  to  James's 
English  adherents,  (i)  France  must  lend  James  troops  and  ships 
for  an  invasion,  James  to  pay  them  for  eight  days  after  the  land- 
ing of  the  forces  in  Great  Britain,  reimbursing  all  expenses  later. 

(2)  By  treaty,  to  be  made  before  the  Fre7ich  leave  Great  Britain^ 
James  must  restore  Ireland  and  Scotland  to  "  their  ancient  liberty." 

(3)  James  must  provide  France  with  5000  Scots  troops  and  5000 
or  10,000  Irish,  to  be  sent  back  when  James  demands  their  ser- 
vices at  home.  (4)  The  treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  the  Parha- 
ments  of  the  three  kingdoms  before  the  French  invading  army 
returns  home.      (This  is  Mar's  conception  of  "a  Free  Parliament.") 

In  all  this  "  there  is  no  prejudice  to  the  true  liberties  or  ancient 
laws  of  the  English  people."  Little  vessels  and  fishers'  boats  will 
carry  across  the  invading  army  and  stores  in  one  night,  so  that 
the  English  fleet,  if  aware  of  the  design,  will  be  unable  to  prevent 
the  landing !  Even  in  England  the  people  only  wait  for  a  foreign 
force  to  rise.  Scotland,  to  a  man,  is  for  King  James  :  in  three 
weeks  he  will  be  king,  in  three  more  Scotland  will  send  an  army 
of  20,000  men  into  England,  where  the  people  are  so  anxious  to 
be  up  and  doing.  In  Ireland  James's  friends,  if  armed,  will  not 
only  prevent  the  English  troops  from  passing  into  Great  Britain, 
but  will  send  forces  to  Scotland  (why  ?)  and  to  England.  To 
accomplish  these  glorious  ends,  a  French  army  of  6000  men  and 
20,000  muskets  will  sufiice  for  England;  2000  men  and  15,000 
muskets  for  Scotland  (which,  to  a  man,  is  for  James) ;  4000  men 
and  15,000  muskets  for  Ireland.  Less  will  do,  if  the  demand 
seem  too  great.  Probably  such  an  insane  paper  of  State  was 
never  drafted,  not  to  speak  of  the  patriotic  design  to  break  the 
power  and  ruin  the  liberties  of  Britain.  Not  an  English  Jacob- 
ite but  would  have  fought  to  the  death  against  this  policy. 

Mr  Stuart  Erskine  has  written  concerning  this  Memorial  of 
Mar's,  "There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  show  that  he  [James] 
did  not  endorse  it."  In  the  nature  of  things  there  can  be 
"absolutely  no  evidence  to  show  that"  the  Pope  or  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  "did  not  endorse  it."  There  is  evidence 
that  James  never  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  the  paper.  Again, 
it  is  argued  that  a  previous  proposal  of  Mar's,  "approved  by  the 
Prince,"  "  to  all  practical  intents  and  purposes  was  precisely  the 


ATTEMPTED   DEFENCE   OF   MAR.  345 

same  thing,  .  .  .  though "  Mars  tiew  Memorial  "  no  doubt  ex- 
ceeded in  some  measure  the  principle  laid  down  in  "  Mar's  previous 
proposals  to  James  of  1721.^^  All  that  James  accepted  of  Mar's 
previous  suggestions  which  corresponded  to  the  insensate  ideas,  of 
the  Memorial  was  to  keep  a  regular  army  of  2000  men  in  Scotland, 
"model  the  Highlanders  into  regiments  to  the  number  of  15,000 
or  1 6, coo  men,"  and  "  make  an  agreement  with  the  king  of  France 
for  his  entertaining  a  certain  number  of  Scots  troops  in  his  service, 
which  I  am  persuaded  Parliament  will  approve  of."^^  On  com- 
paring these  statements  of  James  (February  5,  1722)  with  the 
French  document,  we  see  that  Mar's  earlier  proposals  are  not 
"the  same  thing"  as  his  later  Memorial,  do  not  approach  being 
"  the  same  thing,"  and  that  James  does  not  even  accept  in  full 
Mar's  earlier  proposal  as  to  Scots  in  French  service. ^^ 

Mar's  earlier  proposals,  of  the  close  of  1721,  were  concerned 
solely  with  Scotland,  not  with  England  and  Ireland,  and  did  not 
recommend  James's  abject  subservience  to  France ;  nor  is  a  word 
said  about  legislation  by  the  English  Parliament,  the  Scots,  and  the 
Irish,  under  the  guns  of  a  French  invading  force.  It  is  admitted 
by  Mar's  defender  that  James  "  never  expressed  his  approval "  of 
the  Memorial  "in  writing," ^*^  and,  as  this  is  so,  we  need  not  seek 
"evidence  to  show  that  he  did  not  endorse  it." 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  spend  time  over  such  a  defence  of 
the  indefensible,  in  which  the  printed  Stuart  Papers  on  the  matter 
are  not  once  the  subject  of  reference ;  and  there  is  no  allusion  to 
Mar's  pension  from  England,  or  even  to  that  letter  of  his  to  Atter- 
bury  which  was  cited  at  Atterbury's  trial.  That  Mar  sold  the 
cypher,  and  deliberately  betrayed  Atterbury,  we  have  no  proof. 
That  his  careless  folly  injured  Atterbury,  that  his  Memorial  was  a 
burlesque  monument  of  incapacity  for  statesmanship,  and  so  abject 
that,  if  known,  it  must  have  left  James  without  a  friend  in  England, 
is  certain.  Mar  says  that  Atterbury,  later,  had  the  Memorial 
printed  at  London,  in  French  and  English,  to  discredit  its  author. 
This  was  in  1728.^^  Mr  Stuart  Erskine  says  that  the  Bishop's 
publication  (of  1728)  caused  Mar's  dismissal  from  office,  which 
occurred  in  \']2\y^  The  statement  lacks  probability.  Meanwhile 
it  is  proclaimed  as  a  proof  of  James's  weakness  and  frivolity  that,  in 
the  gentlest  manner  possible,  and  with  manifest  pain,  he  ceased  to 
trust,  and  superseded,  the  proposer  of  a  shameless,  slavish,  and 
utterly  impossible  transaction  as  set  forth  in  the  Memorial. 


34^  JAMES   MISREPRESENTED   BY   HISTORIANS. 

The  things  which  History  permits  herself  to  say  about  James  are 
of  an  inexpHcable  absurdity.  "He  was  as  arbitrary  and  exacting  as 
the  strongest-handed  and  most  self-willed  of  reigning  despots  could 
be."^^  In  fact,  James  endured  rebukes  of  the  most  unvarnished 
plainness  from  Lockhart  and  from  Mar  with  the  courteous  self- 
restraint  of  a  perfect  gentleman.  One  of  Mar's  performances,  after 
he  had  ventured  his  worthy  Memorial,  was  to  stir  the  clans  to 
hatred  of  James  by  averring  that  the  king  neglected  the  exiled 
chiefs.  Atterbury  consulted  persons  who  knew  the  Highlands,  and 
wrote,  "  I  do  not  find  that  there  is  any  real  foundation  for  the 
earnest  and  even  rude  representations  Mar  has  made  on  that  head. 
If  there  be,  he  first  raised  the  resentments  before  he  argued  from 
them.  .  .  ."**  Mar  had  written  to  James,  asking,  "Why  are  you 
taking,  as  it  were,  pains  to  disoblige  and  lose  the  inclinations  of 
those  gentlemen  who  merit  so  well  at  your  hands  ?  .  .  .  Your  being 
in  present  want  and  not  in  cash  will  not  excuse  you  with  them  nor 
with  the  world,  I  fear,  when  the  thing  comes  to  be  known,"  with 
much  more  in  the  same  style.*^  The  fierce  despot  replied,  "  I  take 
as  kindly  as  you  mean  it"  (rather  a  neat  retort)  "what  you  repre- 
sent to  me  in  relation  to  the  Clans.  You  are  witness  yourself  how 
sensible  I  have  been  all  along  of  their  condition,  and  that  I  have 
neglected  nothing  in  my  power  towards  their  relief  I  hope  a 
new  Pope,  whoever  he  may  be,  will  enable  me  to  provide  for  it,  but 
that  shall  not  hinder  my  continuing  proper  measures  elsewhere  for 
the  same  end.  ...  As  I  have  ever  supplied  them  as  I  could,  so 
the  first  money  I  can  get  shall  certainly  be  employed  upon  them ; 
but  as  it  is,  I  have  neither  money  nor  credit."'**^ 

James  was  dependent  on  the  Pope  :  England  had  never  paid, 
nor  ever  did  pay,  his  mother's  dowry  money.  The  Pope  of  the 
moment,  as  Field-Marshal  Keith  (James  Keith)  saw  and  said,  was 
the  reverse  of  generous.  James  could  not  give  what  he  had  not 
got,  and  throughout  his  life  had  an  unroyal  horror  of  debt.  He 
did  send  money  to  TulHbardine,  who  returned  it.  James  wrote,  "  I 
am  far  from  disapproving  these  sentiments  which  engaged  you  to 
return  hither  the  small  supply  I  lately  sent  you ;  but  as  I  am 
sensible  how  much  you  must  want  it,  I  have  added  another  bill  of 
the  same  value  to  it,  which  I  send  you  both  together,  and  which 
I  hope  you  will  not  refuse  from  my  own  hand.  .  .  ."  In  these 
circumstances  we  may  imagine  how  much  James,  to  quote  an 
historian,  "enjoyed  the  spiritual  crown  of  martyrdom, — a  martyrdom 


JAMES    PACIFIES   A   CLAN    FEUD    (1724).  347 

sweetened  by  indolence  and  luxurious  enjoyment."'*''  As  for  in- 
dolence, a  mere  glance  at  the  masses  of  the  Stuart  Papers,  written 
in  his  own  hand  or  to  his  dictation,  and  very  carefully  composed, 
disproves  the  charge.  No  crowned  king,  perhaps,  did  more  busi- 
ness, though  all  the  business  was  futile.  He  corresponded  with 
agents  in  many  foreign  Courts ;  with  Atterbury,  Lockhart ;  with 
countless  jealous  intriguers,  trying  to  pacify  their  quarrels,  which 
were  increasing ;  and  at  this  moment  he  was  labouring  to  reconcile 
the  Duke  of  Gordon  to  the  Macphersons,  who  accused  him  of 
oppression  and  eviction,  while  some  of  them  tried,  not  quite 
successfully,  to  murder  the  Duke's  factor,  the  hardy  Gordon  of 
Glenbucket.  "  This  unlucky  accident,"  as  Cluny  wrote  to 
Marischal,  "brought  the  Duke  of  Gordon  into  our  country,  with 
a  body  of  a  thousand  men,  foot  and  horse." 

' '  For  he  was  resolved 

To  extirpate  the  vipers," — 

"  to  extirpate  us  and  the  whole  name  of  Macpherson  out  of  the 
country,"  writes  Cluny.  Marischal  and  Lochiel,  from  Paris,  there- 
fore begged  James  to  induce  Glenbucket,  while  he  punished  the 
guilty  if  he  could,  not  to  extirpate  the  clan  (Paris,  August  7, 
1724).  James,  therefore,  wrote  to  Lochiel,  enclosing  letters  for 
Glenbucket  and  the  Duke  of  Gordon,  and  so  pacified  a  dangerous 
clan  feud  with  which  King  George  could  not  successfully  have 
meddled.'*'^ 

Meanwhile  one  thing  was  certain, — whatsoever  Minister  James 
chose  in  place  of  Mar,  indeed  whoever  he  employed,  would  be  sub- 
jected to  every  kind  of  suspicion,  hatred,  and  cabal.  Mar  was 
said  to  intrigue  against  these  servants  with  all  his  might.  Mar's 
friends  in  Scotland  would  misrepresent  them ;  James's  friends  in 
England  and  Scotland  would  regard  them  with  jealousy ;  and  the 
whole  storm,  blown  up  from  so  many  quarters,  fell  on  Murray  and 
Hay.  The  Jacobites  were,  in  the  proverbial  phrase,  "a  very  fair 
people, — they  never  spoke  well  of  each  other."  The  meanest  in- 
trigues devastated  the  little  exiled  Court :  they  spread  upwards  from 
the  nursery,  and  Prince  Charles's  nurse,  Mrs  Sheldon  ;  while  Clem- 
entina found  feminine  causes  of  quarrel  everywhere  and  nowhere, 
being  dhauvrh  and  ennuyie,  and  would  sulk  for  weeks  and  months. 
Naturally  the  world  sided  with  the  lady,  and  the  usual  scandals  were 
invented   that  attend  domestic  quarrels.     The  troubles  appear  to 


348  THE   TEMPER   OF   CLEMENTINA   (l  722-1  726). 

have  begun  in  the  gloom  and  disappointment  which  followed  the 
failure  of  Alberoni's  Spanish  attempt.  In  1722  money  was  the 
great  thing  wanted  for  Atterbury's  plan  :  the  English  would  not  find 
money,  and  the  Pope,  Innocent  XIIL,  contented  himself  with 
giving  to  Clementina  the  Golden  Rose.  James  offered  to  pledge 
the  Queen's  jewels,  the  famous  Sobieski  rubies,  but  the  Pope  did 
not  like  the  security  :  the  rubies  were  perhaps  entailed  on  Prince 
Charles,  who,  in  1745,  wished  to  raise  a  loan  on  them  for  the 
Scottish  campaign.  James  was  reduced  to  a  deeper  melancholy  than 
ever,  and  poor  Clementina,  like  the  old  Scottish  lady,  may  have 
asked,  "How  can  I  be  weel  when  I'm  no'  divertit?"^^  "For  the 
love  of  God,  Monsignore,"  writes  Hay  to  Cardinal  Gualterio,  "think 
of  something  to  amuse  the  king,  for  without  that  I  foresee  great 
anxieties."  James  was  kind  enough.  During  the  fatal  illness  of 
Clementina's  mother,  in  July  1722,  one  of  Prince  Sobieski's  house- 
hold wrote  to  one  of  Clementina's,  and  James  sent  the  letter  at 
once  to  Gualterio,  to  have  the  Polish  translated,  that  he  might 
himself  break  any  bad  news  gently  to  his  wife.  He  was  kind,  but 
he  was  not  amusing.^'' 

Clementina  thought  she  could  divert  herself  if  she  were  allowed 
to  know  the  many  futile  secrets  of  the  Jacobite  schemes.  But 
James,  remembering  his  mother,  was  unable  to  trust  a  young  lady 
with  dangerous  secrets, — they  would  be  all  over  Rome,  as  they 
used  to  be  known,  Bolingbroke  said,  to  every  Irish  lieutenant  in 
Paris.  Thus  Clementina  had  a  grievance ;  moreover  she  had 
probably  imbibed  from  Charles  Wogan  that  Catholic  hero's  dis- 
like of  the  Protestant  Murray,  who  had  been  sent,  in  place  of 
Wogan,  to  Prince  Sobieski.  The  queen  was  very  Catholic,  and 
hated  all  the  Protestants  about  James  for  religious  reasons.  James, 
by  policy  and  character,  was  tolerant,  more  so  than  was  agreeable 
to  the  Pope,  who  took  the  queen's  part  in  every  difference.  A  lady, 
Mrs  Sheldon,  was  engaged  to  succeed,  or  be  superior  over.  Prince 
Charles's  Welsh  nurse,  Mrs  Hughes,  the  fellow-conspirator  of  Layer. 
Trouble  arose  in  the  nursery.  As  early  as  February  20,  1722, 
Hay  wrote  to  Mar  that  the  king  "  is  resolved  to  meddle  no  more 
in  these  matters," — quarrels  of  a  mother  and  nurses.  Hay  him- 
self "  has  a  notion  of  the  impossibility  of  women's  ever  agreeing 
together."  ^'^ 

In  January  1723  James  began  to  look  for  a  learned  man  to 
be  about  the  presence    of  the   little  prince,   who  was  already  a 


THE   prince's   governors.  349 

lively,  restless,  headstrong  child.  "  I  will  be  very  dutiful  to 
mamma  and  not  jump  too  near  her,"  the  prince  writes  in  his 
first  letter  to  his  father :  the  nerves  of  his  mother  could  not 
endure  his  jumping.  Michael  Ramsay, — the  Chevalier  Ramsay, 
—  like  James  a  friend  of  Fenelon,  was  selected  as  tutor;  but 
Ramsay  was  the  man  who  translated  "that  base  thing,"  Mar's 
proposal  to  hand  England  over  to  France,  for  the  perusal  of  the 
Regent  d'Orleans.  Ramsay  was  beguiled  by  Mar,  as  was  General 
Dillon,  who,  though  always  honest,  naturally  espoused  Mar's  party. 
Ramsay  arrived  in  Rome  in  February  1724,  remaining  till  about 
the  time  when  Atterbury  persuaded  James  that  Mar  was  either 
treacherous  or  inconceivably  foolish  and  incompetent.  At  this  time 
Hay  writes,  "You  may  easily  imagine  what  amusement  the  Prince 
gives  to  his  father  and  mother,  and  indeed  they  have  little  other 
diversion."  Their  gloomy  palace  was  not  the  place  of  indolence 
and  luxurious  enjoyment  that  historians  have  created  out  of  their 
own  fancy.  Ramsay  was  dealing,  or  was  believed  to  be  dealing, 
with  Mar  and  France.  In  the  autumn  of  1724  he  insisted  on 
returning  to  Paris,  to  shield  his  friends  against  some  calumny. 
Those  about  James,  in  company  with  Atterbury,  were  then  against 
Mar,  and  Hay  writes  that  Ramsay  is  "a  creature  of  the  Duke  of 
Mar," — that  is,  was  a  protege  of  Mar, — hears  him  being  reviled, 
and  believes  in  his  innocence.  "Two  glasses  of  wine  unhinges 
him, — he  is  not  capable  of  sincerity.  .  .  .  He  was  called  here  for 
one  purpose,  and  setit  here  for  another  " — namely,  to  defend  Mar's 
interests. 

As  Ramsay,  a  Catholic,  departed,  James  chose  Murray,  a  Protest- 
ant, to  be  with  the  prince,  conjoined  with  Sir  Thomas  Sheridan, 
who  was  later  one  of  the  Seven  Men  of  Moidart,  at  the  opening  of 
the  campaign  of  1745.  With  a  Protestant's  appointment  to  be 
about  her  son  (1725),  the  wrath  of  Clementina  grew  darker  and 
deeper.  There  are  also  traces  in  the  Stuart  MSS.  of  some  embrog- 
lios,  probably  political,  in  which  Atterbury  and  the  queen  were 
involved :  she  seems  to  have  interfered  politically,  perhaps  in  Mar's 
interest.  Murray  writes  to  Cardinal  Gualterio,  "Something  fresh 
has  happened  which  causes  great  difficulties  between  two  persons 
infinitely  esteemed  by  your  Eminence.  I  think  it  serviceable  to 
both  to  warn  you  and  to  implore  you  in  God's  name  to  treat  what 
the  younger  of  the  pair  has  done  gently,  and  as  an  error  of  youth." 
He  asks  Gualterio  to  "  speak  to  the  queen  about  a  fault  caused  by 


350  GRIEVANCES   OF   CLEMENTINA   (1725). 

want  of  experience."     ''You  know  how  I  am  interested  in  their 
union  and  happiness.     Tear  up  this  note  after  reading  it."^^ 

Manifestly  Clementina  had  done  something  indiscreet.  But 
Murray's  letter  is  all  that  it  should  be,  and  by  no  means  justifies 
the  reports  of  his  "  insolences "  to  the  queen,  which  reached  all 
Europe  and  perturbed  Lockhart  in  Scotland.  When  Murray  was 
appointed  as  governor  to  the  prince,  Mrs  Sheldon  was  the  person 
aggrieved.  She  inspired  Clementina  with  her  own  emotions,  she 
was  the  constant  cause  of  quarrels,  and,  when  James  dismissed 
Mrs  Sheldon,  matters  came  to  a  head.  Clementina  had  suffered 
much  before  the  birth  of  her  second  child,  Henry,  Duke  of  York, 
in  1725.  Her  health  was  bad;  she  thought  that  her  religion  was 
outraged.  Mrs  Sheldon,  a  partisan  of  Mar,  and  she  nursed  each 
the  other's  wrath  :  these  were  domestica  facta,  not  wholly  unknown 
in  private  families.  But  the  results  were,  as  usual,  an  increase  of 
James's  ill  -  fame,  though,  except  for  his  natural  melancholy,  he 
was  perfectly  innocent  in  the  whole  concern.  If  his  son  was  to 
be  king  of  a  Protestant  people,  they  must  be  conciliated,  and  the 
prince  must  be  made  familiar  with  their  ideas,  not  taught  to  regard 
them  as  damnable  heretics. 

Clementina  now  added  a  new  grievance  to  her  list.  She  was, 
or  persuaded  herself  that  she  was,  jealous  of  Lady  Inverness 
(Mrs  Hay),  with  whom,  hitherto,  she  had  apparently  been  on  the 
best  terms.  The  charge  against  James's  morals  would  have  been 
nothing  out  of  the  way,  considering  royal  ethics  in  general,  and 
those  of  European  Courts  at  that  period  in  particular.  But  James's 
character  in  such  matters  was  quite  stainless.  Long  afterwards 
an  adventurer  claimed  to  be  his  illegitimate  son.  Cardinal  York 
(1782)  inquired  into  the  matter,  through  Lord  Caryll,  who  reported 
that  "  he  never  met  with  any,  either  friends  or  enemies,  who  ever 
laid  such  a  thing  to  the  charge  of  his  Majesty. ^^  Dr  Glover,  who 
had  carefully  read  all  James's  correspondence,  still  unpublished, 
in  the  Stuart  Papers,  says  what  the  writer's  own  knowledge  of 
them  corroborates,  that  James  displayed  throughout  the  whole  of 
tliis  painful  transaction  a  kindliness  of  feeling  and  a  desire  of 
forgetting  the  strange  conduct  of  Clementina  that  does  him  infinite 
honour.^* 

Early  in  November  1725  Clementina  retired  with  her  grievances 
and  Lady  Southesk  to  a  convent.  The  step  was  damning  to 
James's  character,  and  has  ever  since  darkened  his  memory.      "  So 


CLEMENTINA   LEAVES  JAMES   (1725-1726).  351 

firm  a  hold,"  says  Glover,  "  have  these  scandalous  fabrications  [about 
Lady  Inverness]  taken  upon  the  minds  of  men,  that  we  find  them 
commonly  accepted  as  acknowledged  truths,  or  stated  as  undisputed 
facts  of  grave  history."  The  Papal  Court,  for  religious  reasons, 
adopted  the  scandals,  and  James  regarded  Cardinal  Alberoni  as 
the  chief  agent  in  disseminating  them,  while  the  moving  cause, 
he  believed,  was  Mar's  intrigues  for  the  ruin  of  Hay  (Inverness). 
The  letters  of  Canon  Stratford  to  Edward  Harley,  second  Earl 
of  Oxford,  give  the  form  in  which  the  scandals  reached  England.^^ 
He  says  that  Murray  had  "affronted"  Clementina  in  1721,  when 
he  retired  from  Rome,  and  that  Murray's  return  as  the  prince's 
tutor  was  one  cause  of  offence.  Both  Murray  and  Hay  were 
recommended,  the  Canon  notes  with  glee,  by  Atterbury,  who,  he 
says,  used  to  "  bully  our  poor  brethren,"  the  Canons  of  Christ- 
church.^^  "  A  great  many  stories  go  about  here,  as  that  he  [James] 
caned  her  "  (Clementina).  "  This  is  a  ripe  precious  fruit  of  Atter- 
bury's  Ministry."  Lockhart  says  that  Mar's  partisans  circulated  the 
story  of  James's  amour  with  Lady  Inverness,  and  that  it  was 
generally  believed.^"     It  ought  to 

"  Have  made  the  laugliler  of  an  afternoon, 
That  Vivien  should  attempt  the  blameless  King." 

En  revanche,  Lady  jNIary  Wortley  Montagu  collected  at  Rome,  and 
sent  flying  to  London,  the  story  that  the  Pope  was  the  fortunate 
lover  of  Clementina  !  Lockhart  also  heard  that  Mrs  Sheldon  "  had 
gained  an  absolute  ascendancy  over  the  queen,  and,  being  entirely 
at  Mar's  devotion,  was  his  spy,  and  by  his  instigation  blew  the  coal 
and  incensed  her  Majesty  against  Lord  Inverness,  and  kept  the 
whole  family  in  hot  water."  This  was  James's  own  belief  at  the 
time.  After  Clementina's  death  (1735)  he  turned  the  affair  over 
in  his  patient  reasonable  mind,  and  wrote  that  he  did  not  think 
Mrs  Sheldon  "failed  in  anything  essential."  She  had  not  been 
treacherous,  only  a  jealous  nurse.  "  There  is  a  great  reality  of 
forgiveness  in  me  towards  Mrs  Sheldon,"  who  had  been  one  of 
the  causes  of  almost  or  quite  the  greatest  of  his  misfortunes.  He 
now  believed  in  "the  uprightness  of  the  queen's  intentions,  and 
the  wickedness  of  Alberoni's  conduct."  ^^ 

James,  perhaps  unwisely,  circulated  a  Memoir  about  the  queen's 
retreat  among  his  party.  He  had  hoped  that  his  wife's  resentment 
against  his  Ministers  "  would  pass  with  a  little  time  and  patience  on 


352  JAMES'S   REMONSTRANCE   (1725). 

his  part."  He  had  tried  to  encourage  her  to  divert  herself  and  go 
into  society.  But  she  let  him  know  that,  if  he  did  not  discharge 
Inverness,  she  would  go  into  a  convent,  "  still  without  bringing  any 
reason  for  it," — exactly  like  Lady  Byron,  and  other  estimable  ladies. 
From  "a  person  of  great  worth  and  consideration"  (obviously 
Cardinal  Gualterio),  to  whom  Dunbar  (Murray)  had  written,  James 
learned  that  the  tutorship  of  Murray,  a  Protestant,  was  another  in- 
tolerable grievance.  Inverness  and  Murray  both  wished  to  resign, 
but,  in  the  circumstances,  James  could  not  accept  their  resigna- 
tions. His  letter,  a  ma  chere  Clementine  (November  11,  1725), 
is  all  that  an  affectionate  husband  could  be  expected  to  write.  He 
reminds  her  that  he  has  patiently  endured  her  "  bouderies  "  for  two 
years.  Doubtless  she  would  have  been  much  more  forgiving  if 
she  could  only  have  made  him  lose  his  temper.  "You  have 
always  had  my  love  sans  partage  ou  rivalie."  He  reminded  his 
wife  that,  as  Inverness  was  displeasing  to  her,  he  had  years  ago 
removed  him  from  all  charge  over  the  household.  He  pointed  out 
that  she  had  not  mentioned  a  single  instance  in  which  Inverness 
or  Lady  Inverness  had  given  her  cause  for  complaint.  She  was 
mistaken,  he  assured  her,  in  thinking  it  bassesse  (her  own  phrase) 
to  behave  with  ordinary  civility  to  persons  with  whom  she  was 
brought  into  contact.  All  this  was  in  reply  to  a  lost  letter  of 
Clementina's,  and  James  examines  in  detail  each  point  of  her  case, 
ending  by  the  wish  that  she  had  consulted  her  father  before  taking 
a  step  so  pernicious  to  her  husband's  interests  as  retreat  to  a 
convent. ^^ 

The  Pope  asked  James  to  take  Mrs  Sheldon  back,  and  declared 
that  he  could  not  approve  of  Murray's  attendance  on  the  child 
prince.  James  replied  that  he  had  no  occasion  for  the  pontifical 
advice  in  the  affairs  of  his  private  family — though  he  knew  that  the 
Pope  could  cut  off  his  supplies.  People  about  the  Pope,  probably 
Alberoni,  were  anxious  to  put  a  stop  to  the  use  of  the  English 
service  in  James's  chapel,  and  James  was  so  harassed  that  he 
wished  himself  out  of  the  Papal  States  (January  19,  1726).^'^ 
Lockhart,  in  veiled  language,  counselled  James  to  give  in  all 
along  the  line,  and  dismiss  every  one  to  whom  Clementina  showed 
an  objection.  He  and  Hamilton,  Eglintoun,  Kincardine,  and  the 
other  Scots  leaders,  might  also  write  a  letter  to  Clementina  implor- 
ing her  to  be  reconciled.*'^  He  also  told  Hay  that  the  public 
voice  laid    most   of  the    blame    on    him,    and    mentioned   a   false 


CLEMENTINA'S   HEADACHES   (1726).  353 

report  that  the  loyal  Allan  Cameron,  who  had  been  in  the  High- 
lands, acted  there  in  the  interests  of  Mar.  At  this  time  a  letter 
of  Clementina  to  one  of  her  sisters  was  published.  Hay  and  his 
wife  had  reduced  Clementina  "  to  a  cruel  situation,"  she  said. 
They  had  "neither  religion  [they  certainly  had  not  her  religion], 
honour,  nor  conscience  " ;  but  what  they  had  done  to  Clementina, 
or  how  their  wickedness  was  displayed,  remained  a  mystery  as 
deep  as  ever,  supposing  the  letter  to  be  genuine.**- 

Meanwhile,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Episcopal  clergy  were  at  feud 
among  themselves.  The  party,  in  short,  was  a  mere  thing  of  rags 
and  tatters.  Clementina  refused  to  listen  to  a  proposal  that  Ormonde 
should  be  the  prince's  governor  (what  a  task  for  Ormonde !),  and 
that  Lady  Inverness  should  leave  the  household  during  the  queen's 
displeasure.  She  would  not  hear  Cardinal  Gualterio,  and  to  the 
Princess  Piombino  she  replied  that  she  had  a  headache.  She  had 
another  headache  when  James  made  proposals  for  reconciliation  in 
a  letter ;  later  she  replied  "  in  Cardinal  Alberoni's  style,"  objecting 
to  all  Protestants,  and  to  Hay  "as  faithless  to  God,  and  therefore 
incapable  of  being  faithful  to  his  master."  "  I  would  not  purchase 
even  my  restoration  at  the  price  of  being  her  slave,"  James  wrote 
to  Lockhart.^2  He  had  again  vainly  adjured  her  to  tell  him  what 
her  genuine  cause  of  anger  was,  —  not  improbably  it  was  some 
hysterical  delusion  :  hysteria,  that  masterless  and  mysterious  fiend, 
is  the  best  explanation  of  her  conduct.  But  Lockhart  told  James 
that  it  was  vain  to  attempt  to  shake  the  public  belief  that  Clemen- 
tina had  been  ill-treated.  The  Queen  of  Spain,  "  the  Termagant 
of  Spain,"  took  up  Clementina's  cause  with  fury.  Inverness  (Hay) 
himself  lost  heart,  and  implored  James  to  yield  rather  than  per- 
petuate the  domestic  f6ud ;  but  James  first  retired  to  Bologna, 
deploring  to  Lockhart  that  reason  had  no  influence  with  his  wife. 
In  the  end  of  March  1727  James  and  Hay  said  farewell  to  each 
other.  A  wilful  woman  can  usually  have  her  way,  and  Clementina, 
having  ruined  her  husband's  character,  broken  up  his  party,  and 
won  universal  sympathy  for  her  unknown  sorrows,   had  her  way. 

In  1727,  as  we  saw,  Lockhart's  correspondence  with  Rome  was 
intercepted,  and  he  fled  to  the  Continent.  He  and  his  friends  were 
vexed  by  James's  appointment  of  Sir  John  Graham  to  succeed  Hay  : 
Graham  was  a  creature  of  Hay's,  they  said.  Still  Clementina  had 
not,  as  yet,  become  jealous  of  Graham's  wife,  if  a  wife  he  had.  Lock- 
hart himself  now  accepted  the  stories  of  the  insolence  of  the  Hays 

VOL.  IV.  z 


354  LOCKHART   DISCOVERED   (1727). 

as  the  cause  of  Clementina's  retreat  to  the  convent,  though  no 
evidence  as  to  details  has  been  found.  Lockhart  admits  that 
people  who  were  constantly  with  James  "  could  observe  nothing  in 
him  tending  that  way  "  (the  way  of  an  amour  with  his  secretary's 
wife),  "and  did  verily  believe  there  was  nothing  of  that  in  the 
matter."^'*  Of  Hay,  Lockhart  gives  the  worst  account,  "as  cun- 
ning, false,  avaricious,  cultivated  by  no  sort  of  literature " ;  but 
Hay's  letters  are  as  well  written  as  those  of  any  gentleman,  and 
he  certainly  had  no  wish  to  supersede  Mar,  which  was  the  real 
cause  of  the  attacks  on  him.  Dunbar's  (Murray's)  ability  is  ad- 
mitted, but  his  "insolence"  is  denounced;  again,  we  cannot  find 
it  in  his  correspondence.  Unluckily  he  was  met  with  greater  insol- 
ence by  Prince  Charles,  whom  he  quite  failed  to  keep  in  order. 
In  truth,  the  jealousies  of  the  Jacobites  among  themselves  were  the 
source  of  their  sorrows.  Their  king  must  have  some  secretary,  but 
every  secretary  in  turn  was  envied  and  detested.  Lockhart,  after 
calling  Graham  "a  creature  of  Hay's,"  inadvertently  remarks  that 
he  was  "  a  young  gentleman  of  good  parts,  and  descended  from  an 
eminently  loyal  family  "  ;  ''^  yet  his  appointment  was  bitterly  resented 
as  soon  as  it  was  announced.  "  A  mean  rattle-headed  person  "  of 
the  name  of  Hamilton  was  given  a  post  of  confidence  in  England, 
to  Lockhart's  disgust.  The  death  of  George  L  was  followed  by  a 
sudden  journey  of  James's  to  Lorraine,  just  when  Clementina  was 
about  to  join  him  at  Bologna.  James  thought  there  were  chances 
of  foreign  aid  and  of  a  Highland  rising ;  disappointed  again,  he 
went  to  Avignon,  whence  the  French  Court  procured  his  removal, 
as  his  presence  there  was  offensive  to  Britain. 

On  October  7,  1727,  Lockhart  informed  James  that  all  his 
ciphers  were  in  the  hands  of  the  British  Ministry.  "  These  ciphers 
came  from  the  fountainhead  abroad,"  "  from  one  that  knew  how  to 
be  master  of  them."  ^  James  believed,  for  reasons  which  he  gave, 
that  Lockhart's  informant  was  in  error,  as  none  of  his  letters  had 
contained  the  matter  which,  according  to  Lockhart's  informant, 
they  did  contain.  The  source  of  the  information,  which  reached 
Lockhart  at  second-hand,  was  obviously  Argyll,  who  had  a  great 
private  liking  for  the  laird  of  Carnwath. 

Meanwhile  Clementina,  still  jealous  of  Hay,  declined  to  go  to 
Avignon.  James  attributed  her  refusal  to  Albcroni,  and  desired 
Lockhart  to  let  this  be  understood  in  Scotland.  Lockhart  replied 
by  a  letter,  scolding  James  for  favouritism  ever  since   1716,  and 


LOCKHART   EXILED   (1727).  355 

defended  Clementina  with  vigour :  apparently  he  was  inexperienced 
in  dealing  with  hysterical  women.  James,  who  was  leaving  Avignon 
to  join  Clementina,  took  no  notice  of  Lockhart's  reproaches  :  indeed 
he  had  left  Avignon  before  the  long  letter  could  reach  him.  Lock- 
hart  was  now  persuaded  that  the  ciphers  had  been  sold,  because, 
though  he  had  heard  that  some  ingenious  and  laborious  persons 
could  decipher,  "yet  I  question  if  the  Divell  himself  can  know 
what  person  is  realie  meant  by  a  fictitious  name."*^^  In  fact, 
there  are  few  things  more  easy  to  discover :  the  context  of  the 
letters  always  gives  an  easy  clue.  Lockhart  finally  says  that  he 
was  told  Hay  was  the  paid  spy  of  the  English  Government, 
"  tho'  I  am  far  from  asserting  it  as  a  truth  to  be  depended  upon." 
Indeed  Jacobite  ciphers  were  always  indolent,  inexpensive  puzzles, 
and  the  only  reason  for  supposing  that  the  decipherers  did  not 
unriddle  the  ciphers  in  Mar's  case  is  their  stumbling  over  easy 
words.  But  something  in  the  handwriting  may  have  caused  these 
errors.  On  the  whole,  Lockhart  seems  to  have  leaned  to  the 
belief  in  Hay's  perfidy ;  and  he  ends  his  Memoirs  in  a  tone  of 
the  deepest  gloom.  For  years  the  Jacobite  party  was  "  out  of 
the  play." 

The  political  faction  fights  of  Scotland  during  this  period  were 
of  moment,  no  doubt,  to  the  persons  concerned,  but  are  of  little 
interest  to  us.  Had  Argyll  been  won  over  by  the  Jacobite  party 
it  would  have  been  an  ill  day  perhaps  for  himself,  but  certainly 
for  the  House  of  Hanover.  His  ambition,  however,  and  his 
sense  of  his  own  importance  as  a  great  prince,  a  great  warrior, 
and  an  eloquent  debater,  found  safer  outlets.  He  had  broken 
from  George  I.,  or  been  discarded  by  him  through  the  intrigues 
of  Cadogan  and  the  Squadrone,  after  17 15.  He  had  joined  the 
party  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  by  him  had  been  deserted.  In 
1719  he  had  his  revenge.  The  prince  had  declared  war  against 
his  father's  Minister,  Lord  Sunderland,  who  felt  safe,  even  if 
George  I.  should  die,  in  the  support  of  his  friends  in  the  House 
of  Lords.  But  the  prince  on  his  accession  might  fill  the  House 
of  Peers  with  new  created  Lords  in  his  own  interest,  as  was 
done  in  Queen  Anne's  reign  (17 13),  and  so  Sunderland  favoured 
a  Bill  to  restrain  the  sovereign  from  resorting  to  this  expedient. 
The  Bill  was  thrown  out  by  the  Commons,  to  the  surprise  and 
disappointment  of  the  Ministry.  The  Tories  said  that  it  was  an 
essential  alteration  of  the  constitution,  and  would  place  too  much 


356  ARGYLL  AND   THE   SQUADRONE   (1721). 

power  in  the  hands  of  the  House  of  Lords  as  then  existing.  The 
sixteen  elected  representative  Scots  peers  were  to  be  raised  to 
twenty-five  sitting  by  hereditary  right,  and  the  sovereign,  except 
in  his  own  family,  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  create  more  than 
six  new  peers.  The  sixteen  Scottish  lords  then  representing  their 
country  were  all  eager  supporters  of  the  Bill, — Argyll  because  it 
was  levelled  at  the  Prince  of  Wales,  the  rest  because  they  would 
all  be  of  the  new  hereditary  twenty-five.  They  would  be  depriving 
their  electors,  the  other  Scots  peers,  of  their  chances,  rights,  and 
privileges,  and  would  be  violating  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of 
Union ;  but  for  these  circumstances  they  cared  not  at  all.  It 
is  true  that  the  twenty-five,  once  secure  of  their  seats,  would  not 
be  the  puppets  of  the  Court  that  they  usually  were,  for  the 
government  of  Scotland  in  the  interests  of  the  English  party  in 
power  had  not  ceased  with  the  Union.  The  Jacobites  tried  to 
stir  up  the  Scots  peers  to  a  generous  and  patriotic  indignation, 
but  found  most  of  them  meanly  indifferent.  The  Jacobite  Scots 
lords,  however,  caught  fire,  and  sent  up  an  address  against  the 
Bill. 

Annandale  now  died,  and  another  representative  peer  had  to 
be  elected.  The  Tories  and  other  patriots  desired  to  choose  the 
Earl  of  Aberdeen.  Argyll  was  of  opinion  that,  apart  from  the 
Court  influence  behind  his  old  enemies  of  the  Squadrone,  they 
had  not  great  weight  in  Scotland.  This  seemed  the  moment  to  try 
a  fall  with  them,  and  see  whether  he  or  they  had  most  to  say 
in  Scotland.  The  Ministry,  in  a  sporting  spirit,  promised  to 
stand  aside  and  let  Argyll  and  the  Squadrotie  show  which  was 
the  better  man.  Argyll  thought  of  the  Duke  of  Douglas  or  the 
Earl  of  Morton  as  a  candidate.  To  this  pitch,  as  a  counter  in 
a  contest  of  faction,  had  the  great  historic  House  of  Douglas 
fallen,  that  once  had  been  the  not  unequal  rivals  of  the  Crown. 
But  Argyll  found  that  the  Squadrofie,  rather  than  be  defeated  by 
him  in  this  petty  and  inglorious  war,  would  back  the  Jacobite 
candidate,  Aberdeen.  His  course,  therefore,  was  to  set  the  Jacob- 
ites at  odds  among  themselves.  Lockhart  described  the  situa- 
tion to  James  (June  15,  1721):  Argyll  had  selected  the  Earl  of 
Eglintoun,  "a  very  honest  man"  (that  is,  a  good  Jacobite),  and 
so  divided  the  Tories.  However,  they  and  the  S(quadrofie  carried 
Aberdeen,  and  Argyll  sent  a  friend  to  Lockhart  to  ask  why  his 
party  had  sided  with  the  Squadrone.     Lockhart  said  that  Aberdeen 


THE   MALT   TAX   (1724).  357 

was  perhaps  the  fittest  man  in  Scotland  for  the  place, — "one  of 
great  capacity  and  knowledge,  particularly  in  the  laws  and  con- 
stitution of  the  kingdom."  But  now  Argyll  was  ready  to  offer 
terms  for  the  Tory  (practically  Jacobite)  alliance  against  the 
detested  Squadrone.  He  would  lend  them  his  influence,  and 
elections  would  protect  those  who  "were  persecuted  for  the 
king's  sake,"  and  would  oppose  the  Peerage  Bill.  Lockhart  hoped 
to  make  more  use  of  Argyll, — a  hope  always  deceitful.  Argyll 
"slighted"  the  Jacobites,  "and  even  agreed  with  the  Squadrone 
in  a  list  of  peers  to  be  chosen  " ;  while  several  Jacobite  peers  would 
not  "  qualify,"  and  so  be  able  to  vote.  Among  these  honest 
"  Non-jurants "  were  Strathmore,  Strathallan,  Rollo,  Wemyss,  and 
the  good  Lord  Pitsligo,  who,  in  old  age,  joined  the  Prince  in 
the  'Forty-five.  Lockhart,  a  personal  friend  of  Argyll,  found  him 
still  very  angry  over  Aberdeen's  election  with  his  party.  He  was 
now  of  Walpole's  party,  who,  in  1721,  began  his  long  tenure  of 
power.  Lockhart  pointed  out  to  him  that  he  would  never  be 
trusted  by  Walpole,  who  hated  the  idea  of  a  rival ;  but  circum- 
stances brought  about  the  fall  of  Roxburghe,  to  Argyll's  gratifica- 
tion. Roxburghe,  the  head  of  the  Squadrone^  "  went  out  on  malt." 
At  the  Union,  Scotland  was  to  be  exempt  from  the  Malt  Tax 
till  the  end  of  the  war  then  raging.  After  the  Peace  of  Utrecht 
the  attempt  to  impose  the  tax  was  met  by  the  proposal  to 
repeal  the  Union,  as  has  been  shown,  and  Scotland  remained  free 
from  the  impost.  At  the  end  of  1724  the  Commons  passed 
a  resolution  not  to  impose  the  Malt  Tax,  but  to  levy  in  Scot- 
land, not  in  England,  an  additional  sixpence  on  every  barrel  of 
ale,  and  to  remove  the  bounty  or  "  prsemiums "  hitherto  granted 
on  exported  grain.  "  As  this  was  regarded  as  a  plain  breach  of 
the  Union,  in  so  far  as  it  expressly  stipulated  that  there  shall 
be  an  equality  of  taxes  and  prsemiums  on  trade,  every  Scots- 
man was  highly  enraged  at  it."^'*^  Yet  Scotland  did  not  repine 
at  the  inequality  of  taxes  which  confined  the  Malt  Tax  to  England, 
which  seems  inconsistent,  as  its  extension  to  Scotland,  after  the 
end  of  the  war,  was  "  expressly  stipulated "  in  the  Treaty  of 
Union.  It  was  feared  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  bounty  on 
exported  corn,  grain  would  "become  a  mere  drug,"  and  all  the 
evils  attendant  on  cheap  food  would  assail  the  unhappy  popula- 
tion. It  is  remarkable  that,  in  a  country  where  the  soil  was  still 
so  innocent  of  drainage  that  rough  hills  had  to  be  ploughed,  as 


358  COMPROMISE   ATTEMPTED. 

relatively  dry  compared  with  the  levels,  there  was  any  grain  to 
export. 

The  Jacobites  found  that  they  need  not  be  prominent  in  fan- 
ning the  general  indignation.  Lockhart,  however,  and  Sir  John 
Dalrymple  drew  up  letters  to  the  Member  for  Mid-Lothian  express- 
ing their  sentiments.  If  he  was  not  heard,  the  Member  was  to  pro- 
test against  the  violation  of  the  Union  and  leave  the  House.  The 
forms  of  the  House,  however,  it  was  said,  admitted  no  such  protest. 
The  sixpence  was  a  violation  of  the  Seventh  Article  of  the  Treaty 
of  Union,  and  the  withdrawal  of  the  bounty  violated  the  Sixth 
Article.  Even  the  Legislature,  the  authors  argued,  could  not  alter 
the  terms  of  the  Union,  though  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the 
Legislature  could  repeal  it  altogether,  as  Jacobites  and  many  of  the 
preachers  of  all  sects  desired.  All  this  was  expressed  in  an  address 
to  the  House  of  Commons.  To  their  Member  the  Heritors  of  Mid- 
Lothian  said  that  they  would  prefer  the  Malt  Tax  (which  was  in 
accordance  with  the  Union)  to  the  new  and  revolutionary  measures. 

The  remonstrances  startled  even  the  Ministry,  for  they  came  in 
clouds,  accompanied  by  private  letters.  The  Scottish  members, 
however,  were  "a  parcel  of  people  of  low  fortunes  that  could  not 
subsist  without  their  board  wages "  (ten  guineas  weekly  during 
Session),  or  were  "  mere  tools  and  dependents."  Fearful  of  losing 
their  seats  and  board  wages,  they  humbly  applied  to  the  Ministry, 
who  dropped  their  proposals,  and  by  a  compromise  with  the  Scots 
members  put  a  tax  of  threepence  a  bushel  on  Malt.  This  was  but 
half  the  English  tax,  and  involved  no  breach  of  the  terms  of  Union, 
except  that  the  taxation  remained  unequal.  To  pay  the  board 
wages  of  the  Scots  members  was  a  burden  on  Government.  If  any 
one  was  to  pay  them,  the  duty  clearly  lay  with  the  Scots,  whom 
they  represented.  The  Government  was  suspected  of  a  design  to 
abolish  the  Highland  dress  and  the  Gaelic  language  ;  and  General 
Wade  visited  the  Highlands,  preparing  to  plan  his  system  of  military 
roads.  These  were  made,  but  Walpole  never  thoroughly  secured 
the  Highlands  by  sufficient  forts  and  garrisons  :  the  neglect  led  to 
portentous  results.  There  was,  however,  after  the  passing  of  the 
Malt  Tax  Bill,  a  proposal  for  disarming  the  Highlands, — a  thing 
not  easy  to  do. 

"There's  something  hid  in  Hicland  brae, 
The  wind's  no'  blawn  my  sword  away," 

says  the  song. 


WADE   IN    SCOTLAND   (1725).  359 

The  new  Bill  came  before  Parliament  in  the  spring  of  1725. 
Several  English  members  opposed  certain  clauses,  and  that  which 
aimed  at  abolishing  the  Highland  dress  was  dropped,  to  be  revived 
after  Culloden.  No  Scots  member  opposed,  and  the  Bill  was  intro- 
duced by  Duncan  Forbes  of  Culloden  and  supported  by  Argyll. 
As  Lockhart  observes,  the  more  quiet  the  Highlands  were,  the  less 
did  Government  need  the  repressive  services  which  the  House  of 
Argyll  had  always  rendered,  receiving  rewards  that  no  other  family 
enjoyed.  King  George  had  a  right  to  exempt  whomso  he  pleased 
from  the  law,  and  would  be  apt  to  exempt  the  Campbells.  The 
truth  is,  says  Lockhart,  that  the  Duke  only  looked  to  the  present 
moment,  but,  had  he  looked  further,  he  must  have  seen  that  the 
existence  of  armed  Celts,  alien  in  language  to  their  peaceful  fellow- 
subjects,  did  not  make  for  peace  and  security.  The  cattle-raiders 
of  the  clans  had  too  much  the  best  of  the  bargain,  politics  apart. 
Wade  was  made  Commander-in-Chief  in  Scotland,  with  power  to 
build  forts  where  he  pleased.  Ships  of  war  were  put  at  his  orders, 
and  troops  were  sent  from  England  to  encamp  at  Inverness. 

This  was  about  June  1725,  when  the  Malt  Tax  caused  great 
agitations  in  the  Lowlands.  The  tax  was  to  be  enforced  on  June 
23.  Delegates  from  the  towns  had  conferred  with  the  Edinburgh 
brewers.  It  was  resolved,  says  Lockhart,  to  enter  accounts  of  the 
malt  in  stock,  so  evading  the  heavy  penalty  on  refusing  accounts, 
but  not  to  pay  the  duty.  If  they  were  sued  by  the  Commissioners 
of  Excise,  the  brewers  were  to  leave  off  brewing,  so  that  Govern- 
ment would  lose  more  in  excise  than  they  would  gain  by  the 
Malt  Tax.  On  June  23  the  Excise  ofificers  deemed  it  discreet 
to  retire  from  most  of  the  towns  in  the  western  shires, — always 
the  most  turbulent,  whether  true  religion  or  the  pockets  of  the 
lieges  appeared  to  be  in  peril.  Theorists  may  attribute  the  ex- 
citability of  the  west  to  the  Cymric  element  in  the  population, 
but  such  opinions  are,  perhaps,  fantastic. 

The  city  of  Glasgow  was  especially  indignant.  Their  Member, 
Campbell  of  Shawfield,  was  believed  to  have  encouraged  Govern- 
ment in  imposing  a  tax  oppressive  to  the  trade  in  tobacco  :  for 
Glasgow  by  this  time  was  dealing  in  American  and  West  Indian 
tobaccos  and  sugars,  which  greatly  contributed  to  "the  cmnforts 
of  the  Saut  Market."  Campbell's  windows  had  been  broken  in 
December,  though,  according  to  Wodrow,  he  spoke  against  the  Malt 
Tax  in  the  House  of  Commons.*^^     On  June  21  Shawfield  warned, 


360  GLASGOW   MALT   RIOTS   (1725). 

or  was  said  to  have  warned,  Wade  of  the  need  of  military  protection. 
From  Edinburgh  Wade  had  sent  a  detachment  of  foot  (June  24), 
but  as  the  mob  had  locked  the  guard-house,  they  were  billeted  in 
the  town.  The  mob,  denouncing  the  absent  Shawfield  as  the  intro- 
ducer of  the  soldiers,  destroyed  his  house,  and  had  he  himself  been 
in  town  "they  would  certainly  have  dewitted  him"  (torn  him  to 
pieces),  says  Lockhart.  Many  strangers  and  thieves,  says  Wodrow, 
were  present  to  attend  the  Glasgow  Fair,  and,  as  usual,  there  were 
hosts  of  women  and  boys.  The  Provost  dared  not  read  the  Riot 
Act :  the  soldiers  were  abed  all  about  the  town,  and  the  mob  had 
its  way.'^*^  Next  day  a  relatively  small  mob  threw  stones  at  the 
soldiers,  "none  of  them  hurt  to  speak  of."  Their  officer,  without 
reading  any  proclamation  or  dispersing  the  rioters  "with  the 
bayonet  and  the  butt,"  gave  orders  to  fire.  Three  or  four  persons 
fell;  the  mob,  incensed,  broke  into  the  Tolbooth  prison,  seized  arms, 
and  rang  the  bells.  The  Provost  ordered  the  soldiers  to  retreat, 
which  they  did,  firing  as  they  went,  and  taking  refuge  in  Dumbarton 
Castle.  Later,  Duncan  Forbes  (Lord  Advocate)  and  Wade  arrived 
with  troops  enough,  seized  the  magistrates  of  Glasgow,  as  conniv- 
ing at  the  riot,  and  conveyed  them  to  Edinburgh.  The  Lords  of 
Session  released  them  on  bail,  which  Lockhart  says  they  had  pre- 
viously offered.  The  people  of  Glasgow  found  that  their  zeal  in 
raising  forces  in  17 15  was  but  scurvily  rewarded,  and  the  oppon- 
ents of  the  Malt  Tax  were  the  more  angry  and  resolute. 

The  Lord  Advocate,  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  justified  his  action  in 
a  memoir  written  in  his  own  hand.  The  Provost  was  guilty,  first, 
of  not  placing  the  troops  in  possession  of  the  guard-house  on  the 
night  of  their  arrival,  in  sending  them  to  scattered  billets,  in  not 
even  trying  to  read  the  Riot  Act  to  the  mob,  and  in  refusing  the 
assistance  of  the  troops  when  offered.  Probably  fear  was  his  true 
motive,  though  that  was  no  excuse.  Some  of  the  bailies  had  prob- 
ably absented  themselves  deliberately  from  the  town,  having  fore- 
knowledge of  the  events.  Bailie  Mitchell,  himself  a  maltster, 
sneaked  away  by  boat  without  offering  any  advice  or  assistance, 
"a  gross  malversation  in  office."  The  Dean  of  Guild  had  shuffled, 
and  insisted  that  the  troops  should  be  armed  not  with  swords  but 
with  sticks,  and  he  made  no  effort  to  disturb  the  sackers  of  Shaw- 
field's  house.  The  Deacon  Convener  disappeared  when  the  mob 
gathered  about  the  guard-room.  Two  other  bailies  drew  up  and 
circulated  a  false  popular  account  of  the  affair,  and  all  connived  at 


ACTION    OF   FORBES.  361 

the  escape  of  the  chief  rioters  when  the  later  mihtary  reinforcements 
were  arriving.  They  made  no  secret  inquiries,  and  only  delivered 
a  list  of  four  women  and  three  men,  who  had  no  fixed  abode,  or 
none  in  Glasgow.^^ 

The  magistrates,  on  the  other  hand,  represented  that  neither  as 
Advocate  nor  as  Justice  of  the  Peace  of  Lanarkshire  had  Forbes 
any  authority  to  arrest  them  and  hand  them  over  to  the  military 
power.  As  for  the  charge  of  "  favouring  and  encouraging  "  the  mob, 
"  in  some  sense  persons  might  '  favour  and  encourage '  yet  be  guilty 
of  no  crime."  It  was  no  crime  to  run  away  in  fear.  They  peti- 
tioned the  king  in  the  same  sense."^  Sir  Robert  Walpole  thanked 
and  applauded  Forbes  for  his  zeal  and  pains  ;  and  he  certainly  acted 
with  great  energy,  whether  he  or  the  magistrates  were  right  in  their 
reading  of  the  law."^  It  was  argued,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the 
seizure  and  imprisonment  of  the  Glasgow  magistrates  was  an  arbi- 
trary and  unconstitutional  action,  done  for  reasons  of  political 
partisanship.  The  magistrates,  at  the  last  municipal  election, 
had  supplanted  "Shawfield's  set,"  and  the  late  Provost,  Aird,  had 
been  "  under  pay "  from  Government.  The  riot  was  made  an 
opportunity  for  getting  rid  of  a  more  independent  magistracy."* 

According  to  Lockhart,  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Session  was 
eager  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Malt  Tax — his  private  object  being 
to  oblige  the  Ministry  and  obtain  a  retiring  pension  of  ;^iooo 
a-year,  while  Lord  Grange,  Mar's  brother,  would  succeed  to  his 
Presidentship,  and  his  own  second  son  would  succeed  to  Lord 
Grange.  He  therefore  persuaded  a  majority  of  the  Judges  to  issue 
an  Act  of  Sederunt  commanding  brewers  and  vendors  of  ale  in 
Edinburgh  to  raise  the  price  of  their  liquor.  The  brewers  would 
thus,  by  the  higher  price,  be  recouped  for  what  they  spent  on  the 
Malt  Tax,  of  which  the  burden  would  fall  on  the  consumers.  The 
Lords  of  Session  had  an  old  right  to  regulate  the  prices  of  food 
and  liquor  in  Edinburgh,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  these 
commodities  from  being  too  dear.  The  proposed  Act,  however, 
had  precisely  the  opposite  effect. 

The  brewers  saw  the  trap  :  while  they  were  to  be  benefited  for 
the  moment,  the  Malt  Tax  would  be  riveted  on  and  would  ruin  the 
country, — surely  an  exaggerated  view  of  an  impost  expressly  stipu- 
lated in  the  Treaty  of  Union.  The  brewers  continued  to  sell  at  the 
accustomed  price,  and,  when  convened  by  the  Lord  Advocate, 
they  declared   that   they  would   go   on   brewing  while   their   stock 


362  THE   BREWERS   YIELD. 

of  malt  held  out,  but  would  go  to  prison  rather  than  pay  the  Malt 
Tax.  Their  turn-out  of  beer  and  ale  was  now  very  low,  and  there 
was  a  corresponding  fall  in  the  excise  due  to  Government  and  to 
the  burgh.  This  vexed  both  CuUoden  and  the  Edinburgh  magis- 
trates, and  the  Court  of  Session,  moved  by  the  President,  passed  an 
Act  of  Sederunt  declaring  it  contrary  to  the  public  welfare  and 
illegal  for  the  brewers  to  cease  brewing.  They  must  go  on  as 
before  July  29  till  November  i,  and  then  give  fifteen  days'  notice 
of  any  intention  to  desist.  They  must  bind  themselves  to  do  all 
this  under  a  penalty  of  ;^ioo  in  each  case.  This  the  brewers 
declared  to  be  a  grievance  under  the  Claim  of  Right.  The  Judges 
ordered  their  protest  to  be  burned  by  the  hangman,  and  called 
them  to  the  bar,  where  they  proclaimed  themselves  recalcitrant,  and 
were  threatened,  in  that  case,  with  imprisonment  from  August  10 
till  November. 

In  London  the  Ministry  considered  the  matter,  and  sent  down 
Argyll's  brother,  the  Earl  of  Islay,  who  was  wounded  at  Sheriffmuir, 
a  man  of  resolute  character.  The  brewers  were  then  summoned 
before  the  Justices  of  Peace  and  ordered  to  pay  the  Malt  Tax. 
Many  of  the  Justices  were  Government  officials,  including  the 
Lords  of  Session  ;  others  were  officers  in  the  army ;  and  they  were 
supported  by  Carpenter's  Dragoons,  who  patrolled  the  streets.  On 
August  25  the  Justices  condemned  the  brewers  to  pay  double 
duties.  A  few  brewers,  moved  by  a  prayer-meeting  and,  it  was 
said,  by  "  a  purse  of  gold,"  now  broke  away  from  the  combination 
on  Islay's  engaging  that  payment  should  be  suspended  till  the  meet- 
ing of  Parliament.  The  concert  being  thus  broken,  the  brewers 
both  in  and  out  of  prison  yielded.  Lockhart  heard  that,  if  they 
had  remained  resolute  and  thus  ruined  the  Excise,  Islay  had  orders 
to  supersede  the  Malt  Tax.  The  brewers  had  little  support  from 
a  thirsty  people,  or  from  men  of  position  who  could  not  but  ob- 
serve that  the  tax  was  entirely  legal. 

The  anxious  Wodrow  had  seen  that  "  the  heavy  grudge  "  against 
the  tax,  with  the  expected  opposition  of  the  clans  to  disarmament, 
— especially  of  Seaforth,  an  exile  on  bad  terms  with  James, — would 
work, in  the  Jacobite  interest.  "These  are  bold  adventures  on  Scot- 
land by  the  chief  Minister,"  Walpole.  Culloden,  when  in  Glasgow, 
was  accused  of  talking  during  sermon  time,  and  of  bantering  Major 
Gardiner,  the  eminent  devotee,  famous  for  the  singular  circum- 
stance of  his  conversion,   for  his   mismanagement   of  his  cavalry 


LORD  GEORGE   MURRAY  CONVERTED.  363 

before  Prestonpans,  and  for  the  gallantry  of  his  death  on  that 
field.^''  It  was  on  the  Malt  question  that  Roxburghe,  the' old  head 
of  the  Squadrone,  lost  his  Secretaryship  for  Scotland  :  '^°  Islay  and 
CuUoden,  under  Walpole,  came  in,  and  practically  governed  the 
country. 

A  friend  of  Wodrow,  recently  returned  from  the  Continent,  had 
found  the  Jacobite  exiles  in  Paris  and  Holland  "very  poor  and 
heartless."  Lord  Sinclair  was  anxious  to  repent,  "and  in  Lord 
George  Murray,  they  say,  a  very  happy  change  is  of  late  wrought." 
Skulking  in  the  hills  after  Glenshiel,  he  was  reduced,  in  lack  of 
secular  literature,  to  read  the  Bible.  "  He  is  highly  commended 
not  only  for  a  serious  convert  from  Jacobitism,  but  for  a  good 
Christian,  and  a  youth  of  excellent  parts,  hopes,  and  expecta- 
tions."'^^ Lord  George  may  have  been  a  very  good  Christian, 
but  in  1745  he  proved,  as  General  under,  or  rather  over,  Prince 
Charles,  that  he  was  no  sound  convert  from  Jacobitism.  But  it 
was  true  that  the  heart  of  Jacobitism  was  broken  by  hope  deferred, 
by  poverty,  by  the  scandal  which  Clementina  had  caused,  by  inter- 
necine jealousies,  and  by  the  power  of  Walpole  combined  with 
Argyll.  Till  Walpole  began  to  lose  his  grip  of  power,  till  Prince 
Charles  came  to  man's  estate,  Jacobitism  was  dormant.  The  main 
current  of  Scottish  history  ran  in  the  old  religious  channel,  and  the 
leaven  of  the  Covenant  produced  the  Secessions  which  have  been 
described.  Lockhart,  an  exile,  fell  in  a  duel.  Jacobitism  reposed 
in  the  hearts  of  the  clans,  and  of  Episcopal  Lowland  lairds,  till 
its  hour  came  for  one  last  gallant  enterprise. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XIV. 

*  Cf.  Allardyce,  Historical    Papers   of  the   Jacobite  Period,   i.  62-123,  New 
Spalding  Club,  for  some  curious  details  from  the  Presbytery  Books  of  Alford. 
2  Lockhart,  ii.  36-38  ;  Grub,  iii.  383,  384. 
■•  Lockhart,  ii.  41. 
•*  Lockhart,  ii.  49. 
°  Lockhart,  ii.  76-78. 
8  Lockh.art,  ii.  93,  94. 
7  Grub,  iii.  386,  387. 
'  Lockhart,  ii.  95. 


364  NOTES. 

"  M'Kerrow,  pp.  326-331. 

19  Grub,  iii.  3S8,  389. 

"  Lockhart,  ii.  loi,  102. 

1-  Lockhart,  ii.  112. 

^■'  Lockhart,  ii.  117. 

1^  Lockhart,  ii.  124. 

15  Lockhart,  ii.  124-128. 

1^  Lockhart,  ii.  131. 

1^  Lockhart,  ii.  152. 

1^  Lockhart,  ii.  232. 

1^  Lockhart,  ii.  289. 

^  Lockhart,  ii.  310,  311. 

-1  Lockhart,  ii.  322-329. 

^  Stair  Annals,  ii.  148,  149. 

^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  168. 

^  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  67,  68. 

^  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  p.  71. 

^  State  Papers,  Foreign,  France,  vol.  168. 

^  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  3,  4. 

■^^  For  Atterbury's  letters  of  April  20,  O.S.,  see  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix, 
pp.  11-14. 

^  For  Atterbury's  letters  of  April  20,  O.S.,  see  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix, 
pp.  16,  17. 

'^  State  Trials,  xvi.  444,  445. 

3^  State  Trials,  xvi.  377,  378. 

^  The  Hon.  Stuart  Erskine,  in  his  Introduction  to  '  The  Earl  of  Mar's  Legacy,' 
writes  :  "What  real  grounds  Atterbury  had  for  believing  that  Mar  had  betrayed 
him  to  the  Government  it  is  impossible  to  say,  nor  is  he  able  to  divulge  them  in 
his  private  correspondence,  which  has  been  printed,"  Mr  Stuart  Erskine  does 
not  make  any  reference  to  his  letters  on  the  subject  in  Dr  Glover's  volume  of 
Stuart  Papers.     Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  Scottish  History  Society. 

^''  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  74,  75. 

^  Mahon,  ii.  88. 

^  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  88-92. 

•^  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  pp.  228-235. 

^'  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  u(  supra,  p.  153. 

^  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  nt  stipra,  p.  210. 

^'  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  p.  200.     Article  29.     James's  reply,  ibid.^  p.  210. 

"*9  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  p.  152. 

*i  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  p.  235. 

^  Lord  Mar's  Legacy,  p.  154. 

*'  Hill  Burton,  viii.  344. 

*•  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  p.  lOl. 

■"  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  p.  64. 

^'  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  64,  65. 

■*''  Hill  liurton,  viii.  344. 

■*'  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  Appendix,  pp.  IOC- 105. 

**  Letters  of  Inverness  in  Gualterio  MSS.  Cf.  "  Queen  Clementina,"  by  Miss 
Alice  Shield,  '  Dublin  Review,'  cxxii.  304. 

•'**  Cf.  "  Queen  Clementina,"  by  Miss  Alice  Shield,  '  Dublin  Review,'  cxxii.  305. 

^'  Stuart  MSS.,  Windsor. 


NOTES.  365 

«3  Gualterio  MSS.,  Add.  MSS.,  B.  M.,  31.  263.     No  date. 

'•'  '  Dublin  Review,'  tit  supra,  pp,  309,  310.     I  have  read  Caryll's  letter  in  MS. 

**  Glover,  Stuart  Papers,  p.  314. 

''  Duke  of  Portland's  Papers,  vii.  407,  408  ;  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission. 

*'  Duke  of  Portland's  Papers,  vii.  63  ;  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission. 

"  Lockhart,  ii.  220. 

58  Stuart  MSS.,  Windsor,  April  1735. 

"''  Stuart  MSS.,  Windsor;  Lockhart,  ii.  246-250. 

*°  Lockhart,  ii.  257. 

'^  Lockhart,  ii.  257-259. 

^2  Lockhart,  ii.  265,  266. 

"^  Lockhart,  ii.  274,  275. 

"^  Lockhart,  ii.  340. 

'^^  Lockhart,  ii.  343. 

«6  Lockhart,  ii.  373,  374. 

*^  Lockhart,  ii.  400. 

•^  Lockhart,  ii.  134. 

®3  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  211 ;  Lockhart,  ii.  162. 

""  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  212. 

"  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  86-88. 

'2  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  88-91. 

'^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  96. 

''*  Lockhart,  ii,  164  ;  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  218. 

'°  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  216-226. 

"  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  226. 

^  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  232. 


366 


CHAPTER   XV. 


LIFE    IN    THE    HIGHLANDS. 


1715-1745- 

The  history  of  Scotland  till  the  Reformation  is  the  history  of 
the  struggle  for  independence  as  against  England.  Throughout, 
Scotland  is  the  ally  of  France,  and  England  finds  intermittent 
allies  among  the  Celtic  clans.  After  the  Restoration,  the  struggle — 
Jacobite,  Tory,  and  Presbyterian — is  against  union  with  England, 
but  the  Presbyterians  prefer  the  Union  to  a  Catholic  king..  In 
this  strife  the  clans  are  the  allies  of  France ;  the  Lowlands,  though 
reluctantly,  lean  on  prelatical  England.  History,  therefore,  turns 
to  the  North,  to  the  Celts,  and  their  essentially  unchanged  society 
of  chief  and  clan.  The  Highlanders  were  presently  to  deal  the 
last  blow  in  the  long  battle,  true  to  the  lost  Cause,  to  the  Royal 
race  which  of  old  they  had  resisted  in  the  interest  of  what  had 
been,  and  continued  to  be,  their  own  cause,  their  old  Celtic  ideas, 
customary  laws,  and  conditions  of  non- industrial  life.  We  have 
accounts  of  the  state  of  the  Highlands,  in  the  period  at  which  we 
have  arrived,  from  General  Wade,  from  Lovat,  and  from  an  English 
resident  in  Inverness,  author  of  'Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the 
North  of  Scotland.'  From  internal  evidence  he  wrote  in  1 736-1 737.* 
Wade's  commission  to  examine  and  report  on  the  state  of  the 
Highlands  was  given  in  July  1724.  He  was  to  see  how  far  the 
facts  tallied  with  a  report  from  Lovat.^ 

Lovat  remarked  on  the  peculiarities  of  the  Highlanders,  their  lack 
of  commodities, — their  wealth  was  solely  in  cattle, — their  speech, 
their  dress,  their  illiterate  ignorance  (which  he  encouraged  by 
suppressing  schools  in  his  bounds).  He  spoke  of  their  clanship 
(the  one  honest  thing  of  which,  in  fact,  he  heartily  approved)  as 


LOVAT   ON    THE   HIGHLANDS   (1724).  367 

"affectation."  Examples  of  this  affectation  were  the  loyalty  of 
the  Frasers  to  himself  when  proscribed,  and  of  clan  Maclean  to 
their  dispossessed  and  long-exiled  chief,  Sir  John  Maclean,  who 
led  400  of  the  clan  at  Sheriffmuir  against  their  actual  landlord, 
Argyll.  Law  is  practically  powerless ;  clan  feuds  still  rage.  The 
clans  are  partly  Whiggish  ;  but  the  chiefs  on  the  Whig  side  in  i  7  1 5 
"have  felt  the  displeasure  of  those  in  power  in  Scotland," — the 
Squadrone,  Lovat  means.  The  great  evil  is  "  the  continual  robberies 
and  depredations  in  the  Highlands  and  the  country  adjacent." 
The  thieves  cannot  be  pursued  and  brought  to  justice.  Addiction 
to  robbery  of  cattle  encourages  the  general  wearing  of  arms. 
Extreme  severities,  the  old  law  of  Fire  and  Sword,  only  provoked 
anger  and  resistance.  Owners  of  cattle  to  protect  themselves  paid 
"  Black  Meall,"  which  was  levied  "  much  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  land  tax  now  is."  So  far  the  best  remedy  has  been  the  raising 
of  Independent  Companies  of  Highlanders,  officered  by  well-affected 
gentlemen.  Of  these  companies  the  author  of  'Letters  from  the 
North '  expresses  extreme  suspicion  :  they  will  one  day  serve  a 
cause  which  is  not  that  of  Hanover.  Meanwhile  the  Companies, 
from  their  local  knowledge,  and,  doubtless,  from  their  clan  ani- 
mosities, were  useful  in  tracking  and  recovering  stolen  cattle. 

After  1 7 15  an  attempt  was  made  to  disarm  the  country,  but 
only  the  clans  loyal  to  England  were  disarmed  :  the  others  handed 
in  useless  old  weapons.  The  Independent  Companies  were 
"broken"  in  1717,  and  Lovat  lost  his  own — a  great  grievance. 
Black-mail  is  now  more  than  ever  extorted,  even  in  the  lowlands 
of  the  shire  of  Ross.  Regular  troops  from  the  various  forts, 
easily  distinguished  by  their  uniform,  were  of  no  use  against  the 
robbers.  The  sheriffs  have  often  been  ignornant,  and  men  of  no 
social  position,  or  disaffected.  Two  were  out  in  17 15,  and  now, 
froh  pudorl  exercise  authority  over  the  loyal  Lord  Lovat.  There 
is  hardly  any  regular  commission  of  Justices  of  the  Peace.  Such 
are  the  observations  of  Lovat,  tending  to  not  much,  except  to  the 
restoration  of  his  Independent  Company,  and  to  a  Lord -Lieu- 
tenancy for  himself. 

Wade  represents  the  fencible  men  of  the  Highlands  and  Isles  at 
about  22,000,  half  Whig,  half  Jacobite.  Their  virtues  are  servile 
devotion  to  their  chiefs  and  loyalty  to  their  clans.  They  regard 
the  Lowlands  as  of  right  their  own,  and  their  depredations  as 
recovery  of  their  own.     Their  arms  and  tactics  are  familiar,  and 


368  STRENGTH  OF  THE  CLANS. 

their  use  of  the  Fiery  Cross.  The  worst  robbers  are  the  Camerons 
(reclaimed  by  the  gentle  Lochiel),  the  Mackenzies,  the  Keppoch 
Macdonalds,  the  Breadalbane  Campbells,  and  the  Macgregors.  So 
weak  is  the  law  that,  in  four  years,  only  one  person  has  been 
hanged  at  Inverness,  —  a  circumstance  shocking  in  a  Christian 
country.  Tascal  money  used  to  be  paid  to  traitors  among  the 
robbers,  but  all  Clan  Cameron  swore  on  a  dirk  not  to  take  tascal 
money.  One  man  suspected  of  it  was  hanged  outside  his  own  door 
by  his  own  people  in  1723.  Some  6000  muskets,  brought  to 
Glenshiel  in  17 19,  are  still  ready  for  active  service.  The  Inde- 
pendent Companies  were  serviceable,  as  Lovat  says ;  but  some  of 
their  commanders,  Wade  hears,  kept  their  companies  at  half 
strength  and  pocketed  the  pay  of  the  other  half, — an  unworthy 
proceeding.  Wade  thinks  little  of  the  forts,  which  are  insufficiently 
manned.  What  Lovat  says  about  the  sheriffs  is  true.  Seaforth's 
rents  are  regularly  levied,  and  sent  to  him  in  France.  Wade 
proposes  the  reconstitution  of  Independent  Companies  under  the 
governors  of  the  forts,  who  ought  to  reside  at  their  stations  ;  the 
erection  of  barracks  at  Inverness  ;  the  placing  of  a  ship  in  Loch 
Ness ;  the  quartering  of  cavalry  between  Perth  and  Inverness, 
with  Quarter  Sessions  held  at  Fort  William,  Killyhaimen,  and 
Ruthven  in  Badenoch.  The  heritors,  not  the  injured  prosecutors, 
ought  to  pay  for  the  maintenance  of  prisoners  in  gaol. 

In  the  Whig  clans  Argyll  could  raise  4000  men,  Lovat  800,. 
Forbes  of  Culloden  200, — in  all,  with  Mackays  and  Monros,  8000. 
The  AthoU  men,  dubious,  are  2000;  the  Breadalbane  men,  1000. 
Sir  James  Macdonald  of  Sleat  could  find  1000,  and  Macleod  as 
many:  they  stayed  at  home,  or  took  the  English  side  in  1745. 
Glengarry  had  800,  the  Moidart  men  (Clanranald)  were  as  many  ; 
Lochiel  had  800.  The  Macleans  are  not  mentioned:  about  250 
of  them  fought  like  Spartans  at  Culloden.  Setting  aside  the  AthoU 
men — very  reluctant  warriors  in  1745 — and  the  Breadalbane  men, 
the  forces  of  the  clans  are  almost  equally  divided.  The  Grants 
were  inclined  to  neutrality.  We  find  that  the  Earl  of  Sutherland 
is  the  pluralist  at  whom  Lovat  hints,  being  Lord-Lieutenant  of  eight 
counties,  including  the  shire  of  Inverness.  He  had,  as  events 
proved,   but  a  small  following. 

In  January  1725-26  Wade  reported  on  his  efforts  in  the  High- 
lands. As  commanded,  he  had  marched  troops  to  Brahan  Castle 
and   disarmed    Seaforth's    clan   with   ease,    for   Scaforth,   after   the 


DISARMAMENT  (1725).  369 

collection  of  his  rents  for  him  was  stopped,  was  impecunious, 
angry  with  James,  himself  in  poverty,  and  addressing  that  prince 
in  a  tone  to  which,  as  James  mildly  remarked,  he  was  well  accus- 
tomed in  his  situation.  Seaforth  was  now  anxious  to  be  pardoned 
by  George  and  to  return  home.  Henceforth  the  Mackenzies  were 
lost  to  the  Cause  as  a  clan  :  in  1 7 1 5  the  waverings  of  Seaforth 
had  done  harm  to  the  Cause,  while  involving  himself  and  his  name 
in  distress.  These  circumstances  caused  the  clan  to  be  predatory, 
as  Wade  reported.  On  Seaforth's  reconciliation  to  Government 
they  became  the  victims  rather  than  the  agents  of  cattle-raiding. 

In  other  respects  Wade  had  acted  on  orders  given  in  com- 
pliance with  his  own  suggestions,  behaving  "  mildly  and  moder- 
ately." His  report  on  the  Malt  Riots  at  Glasgow  represents,  of 
course,  the  military,  as  Wodrow's  and  Lockhart's  accounts  represent 
the  popular,  view.  Bushell,  the  captain  of  the  hundred  men  who 
fired  on  the  mob,  appears  as  "  a  careful  and  diligent  officer." 
The  mob  was  got  together  by  women,  or  by  men  in  women's 
clothes,  beating  drums,  and  crying,  "  Drive  the  dogs  out  of  the 
town  !  We  will  cut  them  to  pieces  !  "  Many  soldiers  were  hurt, 
and  bayonets  and  locks  of  muskets  broken  by  the  stones  thrown. 
Their  powder,  or  part  of  it,  had  been  seized,  and  was  distributed 
to  the  second  mob  which  collected  after  the  firing.  The  mob 
lost  ten  men  killed,  seventeen  wounded  ;  six  soldiers  were  missing 
and  hurt :  their  linen,  shoes,  and  hose  were  taken.  Wade  kept 
down  the  other  large  towns  by  sending  troops  to  them.  The 
released  Glasgow  magistrates  were  welcomed  by  "  great  numbers  of 
the  Kirk,  riding  on  each  side  their  coach." 

The  Lowland  turmoils  did  not  affect  the  clans  :  the  Mackenzies 
asked  leave  to  surrender  their  arms,  "  as  they  had  always  been 
reputed  the  bravest"  of  the  clans  (what  did  the  others  say  to 
this?),  to  English  veterans,  not  to  the  newly  raised  Independent 
Companies.  At  Brahan  several  clans  mustered  and  laid  down 
swords  and  muskets.  At  Fort  William,  Glengarry's,  Clanranald's 
and  Glencoe's  men,  with  the  Camerons  and  Appin  Stewarts,  sub- 
mitted. The  Macphersons  and  Gordons  came  in  at  Ruthven  of 
Badenoch.  The  Companies  were  drilled  with  the  Regulars  and 
sent  to  their  stations :  Lovat's  Company  ranged  from  Skye  to 
Inverness.  The  AthoU  and  Breadalbane  clans  followed  suit.  Yet 
but  2685  examples  of  various  weapons  were  given  up.  Black- 
mail was  no   longer  paid,  and   robberies  were  few.      In  fact,  our 

VOL.  IV.  2  A 


370  wade's  roads. 

information  shows  that,  save  for  the  Macgregors,  some  Rannoch 
people,  and  Barisdale's  men,  honesty  became  the  rule  among  the 
clans.  Many  rebels  of  long  standing  accepted  pardons,  and  the 
roads  were  begun  which  have  made  General  Wade  famous.  By 
a  curious  point  of  honour  the  soldiers  blasted  or  removed  huge 
boulders,  instead  of  avoiding  them.  Under  one  great  rock  was 
found  a  prehistoric  interment.  The  Highlanders  removed  the 
remains,  buried  them,  and  fired  over  them  a  salute  of  honour — 
whence  got  they  the  muskets  ?  The  author  of  '  Letters  from  the 
North  '  tells  this  anecdote  :  he  erroneously  supposed  the  interment 
to  be  Roman.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  some  of  the 
chiefs  who  now  came  in  were  out  with  their  clans  twenty  years 
later ;  or,  if  they  stayed  at  home,  their  clans  followed  their 
kinsmen.  As  for  arms,  when  they  lacked  them  they  took  them 
from  the  English  veterans.  There  was,  however,  much  appear- 
ance of  peace  in  the  Highlands,  though  Lovat  had  other  ideas 
working  in  his  busy  brain. 

For  the  social  state  of  the  North  we  turn  to  the  well-known 
'  Letters  from  the  North,'  edited  by  Jamieson,  the  ballad  collector. 
His  notes  do  their  best  to  expose  the  errors  of  an  English  ob- 
server, but  the  copy  which  lies  before  the  writer  is  covered  with 
furious  marginalia  by  some  excitable  patriot  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  The  author  of  the  '  Letters '  is  a  reasonable  Englishman 
enough,  dwelling  in  a  country  of  mannere  interesting  to  him  from 
their  strangeness.  On  many  points  even  the  least  educated  patriot 
must  confess  his  fairness.  The  Highlanders,  he  says,  are  not  in- 
dolent, but  anxious  for  employment,  and  honest  and  energetic  when 
employed.  He  hates  Lovat,  and  warns  his  correspondent  that 
"as  our  letters  are  carried  to  Edinburgh  the  hill-way,  by  a  foot- 
post,  there  is  one  who  makes  no  scruple  to  intrude,  by  means  of 
his  emissaries,  ...  so  jealous  and  inquisitive  is  guilt."  ^  The 
gaol  of  Inverness,  he  says,  is  very  open  to  the  exits  of  clans- 
men :  the  greatest  part  of  the  prisoners  make  their  escape.  Not 
so  the  prisoners  of  "a  neighbouring  chief,"  whom  he  crimps  for  the 
colonial  labour  market.  They  may  be  thieves,  or  merely  "trouble- 
some fellows,"  who  are  got  rid  of  at  a  profit.  Lovat  is  aimed  at 
throughout.  He  keeps  his  clansmen  poor,  and  discourages  them 
from  putting  their  sons  to  learn  trades. 

The  author  has  much  to  say  about  the  prevalence  of  a  cutane- 
ous disease,  which,  quite  certainly,  was  very  common.     The  state 


FOOD   IN   THE    HIGHLANDS.  37I 

of  a  Highland  hut  in  winter,  the  paths  blocked  with  snow,  the 
inmates  blackening  in  the  peat  smoke,  recalls  accounts  of  Eskimo 
life.  In  winter,  as  of  old,  the  salt  meat  prepared  at  Martinmas 
lasts  for  six  months ;  and  this  is  general,  we  are  told,  in  Scotland. 
Game,  however,  is  so  plentiful  as  to  make  sport  uninteresting,  and 
there  is  abundance  of  salmon  and  of  trout.  The  people  will  not 
taste  either  eels  or  pike :  both  remain  almost  taboo  in  Scotland. 
The  mutton  was  excellent,  the  fowls  so  ill-fed  as  to  be  of  no 
value.  "Roots  and  greens"  were  to  be  had  "in  abundance  and 
in  great  perfection."  Strange  to  say,  the  townsfolk  neither  shot 
nor  fished,  but  spent  their  time  in  a  wretched  coffee-house  play- 
ing backgammon  for  half-pence.  It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  our 
author's  description  of  the  dirt  of  both  Highlands  and  Lowlands. 
By  an  exception  the  linen,  home-made,  was  very  good  and  clean, 
even  in  bad  inns.  Bordeaux  wines  were  cheap  and  excellent :  port 
could  not  be  obtained,  but  this  amateur  disliked  port.  He  did 
not  care  for  the  Presbyterian  sermons, — all  about  grace,  freewill, 
and  predestination.  "  They  might  as  well  talk  Hebrew  to  the 
common  people,  and  I  think  to  anybody  else."  In  the  Lowlands 
nobody  knew  more  about  predestination  and  freewill  than  the 
common  people :  generation  after  generation  had  been  made 
familiar  with  these  topics,  so  much  more  edifying  than  cold 
moral  discourses  about  their  duties.  A  well-dressed  woman  in 
church  was  in  danger,  we  are  told,  of  ministerial  rebuke.  "The 
minister  looks  upon  a  well-dressed  woman  as  an  object  unfit  to 
be  seen  in  the  time  of  divine  service,  especially  if  she  be  hand- 
some." "Their  prayers  are  more  like  narrations  to  the  Almighty 
than  petitions  for  what  they  want,  and  the  sough,  as  it  is  called  (the 
whine),  is  unmanly,  and  much  beneath  the  dignity  of  their  subject." 
"  Behold,"  said  one  preacher,  "  the  particular  wisdom  of  our 
institution  in  ordaining  the  Sabbath  to  be  kept  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  for,  if  it  were  any  other  day,  it  would  be  a 
broken  week!'  Over  a  dram  or  glass  of  ale  they  said  a  long 
grace,  even  as  when  Sir  James  Turner,  in  1666,  entertained  the 
ministers  among  his  Covenanting  captors  that  he  might  hear  this 
performance.  "Sabbath  observance"  was  much  what  it  still  is 
in  remote  parts  of  the  Highlands.  The  Episcopalians,  if  not  in 
Government  employment,  were  all  Jacobites,  and  their  ministers 
were  all  Non-jufors,  save  in  an  Aberdeen  chapel,  where  the  people 
deliberately   took   snuff,  or   otherwise  showed   lack    of  reverence, 


372  ROADS  AND  AGRICULTURE. 

when  King  George  was  prayed  for.  Episcopal  ladies  went  to 
their  chapels  with  a  pleasant  aspect,  in  Edinburgh,  "through  an 
accumulation  of  the  worst  kind  of  filth,"  and  came  out  with  cheer- 
ful countenances :  the  Presbyterians  "  look  as  if  they  had  just 
before  been  convicted  and  sentenced  by  their  gloomy  teachers." 

Wages,  at  harvest,  were  paid  in  kind,  or  if  in  money,  amounted 
to  twopence  or  threepence  daily,  and  food.  Wheat  was  scarcely 
grown  in  Ross  :  the  oat-cakes  were  much  better  than  the  black 
bread  of  the  labourers  in  parts  of  England.  But  there  was 
scarcity,  and  even  dearth,  of  oatmeal  in  Inverness  if  ships  were 
retarded  on  their  way  thither. 

As  to  the  west  coast,  a  familiar  anecdote  is  told  of  how  the  Glen- 
garry gentry  assaulted  the  manager  of  an  English  foundry,  and  how 
professional  jealousy  induced  a  Highlander  to  try  to  murder  an 
English  smith.  In  1728  Mr  Rawlinson,  from  Invergarry,  informs 
Forbes,  Lord  Advocate,  that  two  of  his  men  have  been  murdered 
by  a  villain,  who  is  detained  in  barracks,  as  from  Inverness  gaol  he 
would  probably  escape,  as  usual.  This  Rawlinson  is  said,  on 
evidence  published  sixty  years  after  date,  to  have  introduced  the 
philabeg,  or  short  separate  kilt,  in  place  of  the  portion  of  the  plaid 
that  used  to  form  the  skirt  over  the  thighs.*  The  story  is  disputed 
by  some  archaeologists,  on  the  testimony  of  old  representations  in 
works  of  art. 

The  roads,  "  before  they  were  made,"  were  dangerous  bridle- 
paths, and  a  bridge  over  a  roaring  torrent  might  consist  of  two 
felled  fir-trees.  People  rode  little,  except  on  the  tiny  native 
garrons  or  Celtic  ponies,  which  were  sure-footed.  They  ran  wild 
on  the  hills  till  of  considerable  age,  when  they  were  hunted  and 
secured.  The  Highlanders  held  that  they  descended  from  horses 
of  Spanish  importation  ;  but  the  Celtic  pony  has  a  much  longer 
pedigree,  and  strikingly  resembles  horses  etched  on  bone  by  the 
palaeolithic  artists  of  the  reindeer  period  in   France. 

Agriculture  was  peculiar  and  distressful,  for  the  people  were 
living  in  what  may  be  called  the  Wooden  Age.  In  the  *  Iliad '  we 
learn  that  there  were  iron  smiths  attached  to  remote  farms,  and 
that  the  Achaeans  could  work  their  own  agricultural  implements 
in  iron  without  going  to  the  distant  town.''  Some  gentlemen  in  the 
Highlands  had  their  own  smith  and  stithy,  but,  as  a  rule,  "almost 
all  their  implements  of  husbandry,  which  in  other  countries  are 
made  of  iron,  or  partly  of  that  metal,  are  in  some  parts  of  the 


AGRICULTURE.  373 

Highlands  entirely  made  of  wood,  such  as  the  spade,  ploughshare, 
harrows,  harness,  and  bolts ;  and  even  locks  for  doors  are  made 
of  wood."  **  "  The  soil  of  the  corn-lands  is,  in  some  places,  so 
shallow,  with  rocky  ground  beneath  it,  that  a  plough  is  of  no 
manner  of  use."  In  deeper  soil  they  ploughed  with  four  ponies 
abreast ;  the  driver  walked  backwards,  in  front  of  the  ponies,  steer- 
ing them,  so  that  the  share  might  avoid  sunken  rocks.  In  winter, 
when  oatmeal  began  to  fail,  they  bled  their  cattle,  boiling  the  blood, 
or  making  it,  with  a  little  meal,  into  cakes.  "  I  do  not  remember 
to  have  seen  the  least  spot  that  would  bear  corn  uncultivated,  not 
even  upon  the  sides  of  the  hills,  where  it  could  be  no  otherwise 
broke  up  than  with  a  spade."  Manure  was  extremely  scarce,  and 
hay  almost  unknown.  In  the  straths,  agricultural  conditions  must 
have  been  much  better,  but  the  author  is  speaking  of  nooks  in  the 
mountains.  The  work  in  harvest  was  mainly  done  by  women  :  a 
woman  and  a  girl  would  labour  for  a  fortnight  at  a  single  field.  If 
this  be  true, — and  one  suspects  exaggeration, — the  Highlanders 
could  more  easily  leave  their  harvesting,  as  they  did,  "  to  follow 
Prince  Charlie."  The  prejudice  of  gentrice  (gentle  blood)  was 
opposed  to  industry  among  the  men.  For  mills  they  mainly  used 
the  ancient  hand-querns,  two  circular  stones.  Lochiel  attempted  to 
introduce  water-mills  in  Lochaber,  but  the  distances  were  too  long 
for  the  carriage  of  corn  to  the  mills,  and  little  advantage  was  taken 
of  them.  In  summer  the  cattle  were  driven  to  high  grazing  spots, 
where  the  people  lived  in  sheilings,  "  much  worse  huts  than  those 
they  leave  below."  The  cottages,  at  best,  were  much  like  those 
which  were  still  to  be  seen  in  Ardnamurchan  lately ;  more  like 
large  birds'  nests  than  places  of  human  habitation, — the  fire  in  the 
middle  of  the  room,  the  chimney  a  hole  in  the  roof.  The  ruins  of 
Rob  Roy's  cottage  in  Glen  Shira  prove  that  it  was  not  much  more 
palatial.  An  extract  from  a  rent  roll  shows  a  cotter  paying,  in 
English  money,  5s.  10  ^/^d.,  three  pounds  of  butter,  a  little  oatmeal, 
and  three-sixteenths  of  a  sheep.^  The  landlord  had  hypothec  on 
the  corn  of  the  year,  and  might  seize  it  for  arrears  of  rent :  rent 
was  remitted  about  one  year  out  of  five. 

Poor  as  they  were,  the  families  contended  for  the  fosterage  of 
sons  of  chiefs  :  the  ancient  Celtic  laws  of  fosterage  are  given  in  the 
Irish  '  Senchus  Mor.'  The  custom  of  thus  bringing  up  children 
apart  from  their  families  is  not  Celtic  only,  it  even  occurs  in 
Melanesia ;  but  it  lingered  very  late  in  the  Highlands,  the  relations 


374  LAND  TENURE. 

of  foster  kin  being  very  close  and  valuable  to  both  parties.  In 
such  poor  conditions  were  reared  the  hardy  men  who  broke  the 
British  ranks  at  Prestonpans  and  Falkirk,  and  who,  if  not  exhausted 
by  hunger  and  toil  and  distracted  by  clan  jealousies,  might  have 
done  the  same  at  Culloden.  It  seems  strange  if,  with  game,  trout, 
and  salmon  abundant,  many  of  the  peasant  population  did  not  live 
better  than  we  gather  from  these  accounts.  The  letting  of  land  by 
the  chiefs  seems  still  to  have  been  arranged  much  on  the  ancient 
lines  of  the  Geil  Finne.  Sir  Walter  Scott  possessed  a  manuscript 
of  the  Gartmore  family,  or  had  a  transcript  thereof,  which  Jamieson 
published  with  '  Letters  from  the  North,'  acknowledging  his  obliga- 
tion to  Scott.  Every  reader  sees  that  Bailie  Nicol  Jarvie's  account 
of  the  economics  of  the  Highlands  in  '  Rob  Roy '  is  a  humorous 
paraphrase  of  this  manuscript.  The  author  says  that  lands  are  set 
on  a  "  short  tack,"  or  at  pleasure,  to  the  near  kin  of  the  chief. 
"  They,  their  children,  and  grandchildren,  possess  at  an  easy  rent 
till  a  nearer  descendant  be  again  preferred  to  it.  As  the  propinquity 
removes,  they  become  less  considered,  till  at  last  they  degenerate  to 
be  of  the  common  people.  .  .  ."  Lovat  was  fond  of  recognising 
and  proclaiming  his  kinship  even  with  the  humblest, — one  source 
of  his  power  among  his  clan. 

The  "good  men,"  or  tacksmen,  kept  on  their  holdings  large 
numbers  of  cotters,  each  with  a  hut,  grass  for  a  cow  or  two,  and 
as  much  rough  land,  mainly  unarable,  as  will  sow  about  a  boll  of 
oats,  under  spade  tillage.  Sometimes,  on  the  old  "  steel  bow " 
principle,  the  tacksman  stocked  the  land  with  cattle,  for  which  a 
very  high  rent  was  paid  to  him.  Thus  the  chiefs  "affect  state,'^ 
the  tacksmen  "acquire  a  habit  of  chicanery,"  and  "the  common 
people  are  abandoned  to  all  licentiousness," — a  Lowland  view  not 
otherwise  confirmed,  as  far  as  "  licentiousness "  is  concerned : 
probably  indifference  to  the  law  of  meum  and  tiium  in  cattle  is 
intended.**  As  to  personal  property,  the  Highlanders  were  not- 
ably honest,  and  travellers  were  infinitely  safer  than  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  London.  As  for  creagJis  (cattle  raids),  the  Lowlanders 
of  the  Border  had  lately  been  in  no  case  to  throw  the  first  stone 
at  the    Highlanders. 

"  If  every  ninn  lia<l  his  :iin  cow, 
A  rifjlit  poor  clan  your  ain  woiiltl  he," 

says  the  old  taunt  against  the  House  of  JJuccleuch.  To  the  pre- 
vailing poverty  and  "  congested  "  condition  of  holdings,  each  over- 


ROBBERY   AND   BLACK-xMAIL.  375 

populated,  the  Gartmore  author  attributes  the  cattle-raiding,  while 
absolute  dependence  on  the  chiefs  encourages  feuds  and  Jacobitism. 
"  Every  place  is  full  of  idle  people,  accustomed  to  arms,  and  lazy  in 
everything  but  rapines  and  depredations."®  There  was  no  other 
outlet  for  energy.  Towns  could  not  exist  for  lack  of  supplies  in  the 
absence  of  means  of  transport,  and  manufactures  were  impossible. 
Whisky  shops  were  common  :  any  one  who  chose  could  keep  a 
still,  and  men  led  idle  lives,  drinking  and  swaggering.  The  Gart- 
more author  is  writing  so  late  as  1747,  and  complains  that  the  old 
Scottish  kingdom  could  not,  and  Government  since  the  Union  did 
not,  reduce  the  Highlands  to  the  norm  of  European  society.  The 
risings  of  1 7 1 5  and  1 7 1 9  left  germs  of  unsettled  and  lawless  life, 
cultivated  by  Rob  Roy,  whose  career  is  too  familiar  to  need  descrip- 
tion, while  the  proceedings  of  Macdonnell  of  Barisdale  belong  to 
a  period  just  before  1745. 

This  author,  on  a  rough  calculation,  reckons  the  fighting  men 
of  the  Highlands,  from  the  ages  of  eighteen  to  fifty-six,  at  57,500. 
This  is  more  than  double,  is  nearly  triple,  the  estimate  of  Wade 
twenty  years  earlier.  All  the  agriculture  and  fishery  can  be  done 
by  half  the  actual  population.  Half  of  the  people  are  unemployed, 
"  living  an  idle  sauntering  life  among  their  relations,"  or  upon 
black-mail.  In  cattle-raiding,  or  recovering  raided  cattle,  they 
acquire  a  guerilla  education — speed,  cunning,  skill  in  ambush  and 
surprise — which  makes  them  dangerous  to  regular  troops.  The 
whole  loss  from  robbery,  black-mail,  recovery,  and  understocking 
may  be  ;!^3 7,000  yearly.  The  Independent  Companies  cost  little 
less  than  the  land  tax,  and  the  captains  of  companies  are  apt  to  be 
a  kind  of  Jonathan  Wilds.  Half  the  men  steal,  that  the  other  half 
may  be  employed  in  recovery.  "  Whoever  considers  the  shameful 
way  these  watches  were  managed,  particularly  by  Barisdale,  and  the 
Macgregors  in  the  west  ends  of  Perth  and  Stirling  shires,  will  easily 
see  into  the  spirit,  nature,  and  consequences  of  them."  The 
poverty  and  filth  of  the  huts  is  eminently  prejudicial  to  dairy 
work,  and  the  author  of  '  Letters '  enlightens  us  as  to  the  colour 
and  quality  of  the  butter. 

Young  Highlanders,  with  commissions  in  French  and  other 
foreign  armies,  return  home  every  year  or  two  and  recruit  for 
France  or  Spain.  The  country  thus  becomes  rich  in  trained  soldiers, 
and  the  Norman  masters  of  ships  know  the  West  Highland  coast 
"  fully  as  well  as  any  British  sailor."     The  Non-juring  and  Catholic 


376  POETRY  AND   TALES. 

clergy  keep  up  the  Jacobite  spirit,  and  everything  in  the  conditions 
of  life  sustains  it.  The  Presbyterian  clergy  are  negligent  in  their 
duty,  and  are  subdued  by  their  surroundings.  Such  are  the  senti- 
ments of  a  writer  who,  probably,  lived  on  Graham  property  near  the 
active  IMacgregors.  It  appears  ■  that  the  policy  of  Wade  had  been 
remissly  executed,  and  1745  found  Government  in  little  better  case, 
as  against  a  Highland  rising,  than  in  1 7 1 5. 

Life  in  the  Highlands  for  the  clansmen  in  general  would  seem 
not  worth  living,  if  we  judged  by  the  reports  of  that  observant 
"pock  pudding,"  the  author  of  the  'Letters.'  But  at  least  it  was 
a  life  of  nature,  spent  mainly  in  the  open  air,  and  in  a  country 
to  the  beauty  whereof  the  inhabitants  were  keenly  sensitive.  Like 
most  dwellers  in  mountainous  countries,  they  are  devoted  to  their 
homes.  "  Do  not  be  thinking  of  us  too  much,"  said  a  poor  High- 
land woman  lately  to  her  son,  who  was  going  to  live  in  a  town, 
"or  I  will  be  seeing  you  in  the  gloaming."  The  poetry  of  the 
Gaelic  makers  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  is  as 
rich  in  the  love  of  nature  as  the  Finnish  '  Kalewala.'  A  people 
capable  of  this  great  and  ennobling  pleasure  is  not  necessarily 
unhappy  because  it  is  poor. 

In  the  generation  following  the  'Forty -five,  a  Lowlander  on 
the  fringes  of  the  Highlands,  Mr  Ramsay  of  Ochtertyre  in 
Stirlingshire,  left  a  valuable  account  of  Highland  as  well  as 
of  Lowland  life  in  the  eighteenth  century. ^°  He  remarked  on 
the  indifference  of  the  chiefs  to  their  clan  bards  :  of  old  they 
had  held  a  place  as  honoured  as  that  of  Demodocus  at  the 
Court  of  Phaeacia  in  the  '  Odyssey.'  The  duties  of  bard  and 
harper  had  long  been  separated,  but  both  poets  and  harpers  had 
begun  to  die  out  before  the  Revolution  of  1688.  "Nothing  damps 
the  poetic  fire  more  than  the  coldness  of  the  great ; "  without 
an  Alcinous  there  is  no  Demodocus.  The  popular  poetry  and 
music  flourished  after  the  poetry  of  the  little  Courts  decayed. 
The  piper  had  still  his  plot  of  land,  and  sometimes  even  a  salary. 
There  is  much  legend  concerning  the  hereditary  piper  of  the 
Macleods,  the  second-sighted  M'Rimin  (or  M'Rimmon),  who,  as 
Theophilus  Insulanus  (a  Macleod)  tells  us,  foresaw  his  own  fall 
in  the  Rout  of  Moy  (1746), — 

"The  rest  shall  come  back,  but  M'Rimin  shall  never," — 
and  was  also  noted  as  marked  for  death  by  another  second-sighted 


HONOUR,   HUMANITY,   AND    HOSPITALITY.  ^ 

man.  He,  or  one  of  his  family,  composed  a  song  which,  it  seems, 
is  not  forgotten  in  the  Highlands — 

"  Oh  for  three  hands  ! — 
One  for  the  claymore  and  two  for  the  pipes." 

The  words  were  quoted  to  the  writer  by  a  Highlander  in  Mull, 
a  propos  of  the  legend  of  the  piper  lost  in  Mackinnon's  cave, 
assailed,  it  seems,  by  the  unknown  dwellers  in  that  place.  Ramsay 
points  out  that  the  kindliness  between  chiefs  and  vassals,  though 
maintained  by  Lovat  for  interested  purposes,  greatly  profited  the 
commoners.  "They  formed  themselves  on  the  model  of  their 
superiors,  and  endeavoured  to  adopt  their  manners  and  sentiments. 
And  hence  that  class  of  men  in  the  Highlands  have  always  been 
more  courteous  and  intelligent,  more  gallant  in  their  manners,  and 
more  scrupulous  about  personal  honour,  than  persons  of  that 
humble  station  in  other  countries." 

As  to  "personal  honour,"  there  is  nothing  to  choose  among 
honest  men ;  but  Lowlanders  familiar  with  the  Highlands  know 
that  there  can  nowhere  be  found  more  intelligent  and  well-read 
companions,  or  more  interesting  narrators  of  legend,  than  among 
the  Highlanders,  Ramsay  also  praises  their  antique  hospitality, — 
a  virtue  not  confined,  in  Scotland,  to  the  north  of  the  Highland 
line.  More  remarkable,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  was  "their 
kindness  to  mariners  shipwrecked  on  their  coast."  They  were  no 
wreckers,  in  an  age  of  wreckers,  but,  if  a  vessel  was  seen  in  dis- 
tress, sent  out  boats  for  her  rescue,  and  did  their  best,  unlike  the 
eastern  people,  "to  secure  the  cargo  for  the  owners."  The  unfor- 
tunate sufferers  are  afterwards  billeted,  according  to  their  rank,  on 
the  neighbouring  families  till  they  are  in  a  condition  to  proceed 
homewards.  It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  Martin  with  regard  to 
a  fact  universally  known.  In  this  respect  the  Highlands  were  by 
many  years  ahead  of  the  civilisation  of  many  parts  of  southern 
Scotland  and  England,  where  a  wreck  was  accounted  fair  prize, 
and  even  the  lives  of  the  shipwrecked,  if  we  may  believe  a  St 
Andrews  legend  of  the  eighteenth  century,  were  in  danger. 

There  was  a  popular  culture,  which  modern  education  destroys 
without  providing  a  humanising  substitute.  "The  whole  family, 
seated  by  a  cheerful  fire,  contrived  to  pass  the  long  winter  nights 
with  pleasure," — of  which  the  author  of  the  '  Letters '  had  no 
suspicion, — "  without  the  aid  of  books,   .   .   .   telling  tales  of  other 


378  CELTIC  ORAL   LITERATURE. 

times.  .  .  .  The  old  men  communicated  with  the  utmost  care 
their  histories  and  traditions  to  the  rising  generation,  as  they  had  re- 
ceived them  from  their  fathers,  and  nothing  could  exceed  the  avidity 
with  which  young  people  sucked  in  and  retained  this  interesting 
information."  From  the  abundance  of  historical  and  fairy  legend 
still  to  be  gleaned  in  the  Highlands,  it  is  plain  that  this  excellent 
custom  has  not  wholly  ceased.  In  Glencoe  the  historic  events,  from 
the  clan  battle  over  the  cheese  to  the  Massacre,  and  the  story  of 
James  Stewart,  Allan  Breck,  and  the  murder  of  Glenure,  are  still 
known  and  narrated  with  minute  fidelity.  The  poetic  tales  are  not 
forgotten.  "The  women  were  passionately  fond  of  them,  regarding 
the  martial  virtues  as  essential  in  a  son  or  a  lover.  .  .  .  These 
precepts  and  examples,  which  are  set  before  them  in  the  engaging 
dress  of  poetry,  aided  by  congenial  music,  teach  them  that  generous 
contempt  of  danger,  and  even  of  death,  to  which  the  common 
people  of  commercial  countries  seldom  attain  till  they  have  been 
thoroughly  disciplined  and  familiarised  to  war."  In  fact,  of  course^ 
the  highest  courage  is  daily  shown,  among  the  perils  of  civil  life,  by 
"  common  people  of  commercial  countries," — miners,  policemen, 
railwaymen,  and  generally.  But  on  the  sudden  appearance  of  war 
the  Highlanders  were  at  once  equal,  or  even  superior,  to  trained 
veterans,  which  was  due  to  the  nature  of  their  unbookish  but  valu- 
able education. 

Ramsay  also  admired  the  Gaelic  sgealachda,  or  romantic  Mdrchen 
in  prose.  "One  cannot  forbear  a  wish  that  some  of  the  best 
and  most  striking  ones  were  collected  and  faithfully  translated  be- 
fore they  be  irrecoverably  lost."  Fortunately  the  tales  have  been 
collected  and  translated,  by  the  exertions  of  Campbell  of  Islay 
('Popular  Tales  from  the  West  Highlands'),  and,  later,  of  Lord 
Archibald  Campbell  and  several  of  the  clergy  in  the  Highlands. 
Another  trait  of  popular  culture  was  the  singing  of  luitincags,  or 
songs  of  labour,  during  harvest,  while  making  homespun  cloth,  and 
on  other  occasions.  The  author  of  the  '  Letters '  alludes  briefly 
to  these  chants  :  in  Finland  they  make  a  considerable  part  of  the 
so-called  "  national  Epic."  The  practice  of  singing  luinneags^  each 
woman  contributing  her  stave  to  the  poem,  is  not  extinct  in  the 
remoter  Hcbridean  islands,  such  as  Eriskay.  Perhaps  the  second- 
sight  did  not  add  to  the  cheerfulness  of  life,  but  it  contributed  to 
the  topics  of  interest.  As  Ramsay  remarks,  it  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  North,  but  it  still   is   more  frequently  observed   on   by   High- 


SECOND-SIGHT — ILLITERACY.  379 

landers  than  Lowlanders.  People  believed  in  it  "  from  the  striking 
conformity  betwixt  the  presage  and  its  accomplishment,  a  species 
of  evidence  that  is  almost  irresistible."  Ramsay  gives  some  ex- 
amples among  educated  and  well-born  percipients,  adding,  incon- 
sistently, "  it  is  certain  that  hardly  any  are  said  to  possess  this 
faculty  but  the  illiterate,  the  ignorant,  and  the  superstitious." 
This  was  not  then,  and  is  not  now,  the  truth  of  the  matter. 
Ramsay  somewhat  blames  the  clergy  for  not  having  preached 
down  second -sight.  Mrs  Grant  of  Laggan  mentions  a  minister 
who  tried  to  do  so,  but  abstained  after  a  vision  of  his  own,  and 
more  than  one  excellent  minister  of  to-day  has  the  same  reason  for 
not  thundering  against  the  belief. 

It  was,  perhaps,  a  mark  of  illiteracy  that  the  old  tombstones, 
even  of  chiefs,  often  bore  no  inscription.  A  potter's  daughter  in 
Athens,  of  the  seventh  century  before  Christ,  has  her  written  epitaph 
on  her  stele;  not  so  the  Gaelic  warriors.  "An  epitaph  could  have 
contributed  little  to  fame,  since  the  persons  in  whose  esteem  the 
dead  man  wished  to  live  could  seldom  read."  In  Ramsay's  own 
time  the  Highlanders  were  usually  content  with  plain  uninscribed 
gravestones  by  force  of  habit,  "  but  wherever  Lowland  manners 
preponderate,  inscriptions  are  adopted."  Inscriptions,  in  fact,  testify 
not  merely  to  the  existence  of  writing,  but  of  the  general  diffusion 
of  the  power  of  reading.  The  right  estimate  of  Highland  happi- 
ness is  to  be  derived,  not  from  the  conditions  of  life  as  judged  by 
ourselves,  but  from  the  way  in  which  the  people  viewed  these 
conditions.  The  imprisoned  Lady  Grange  found  St  Kilda  "a  vile, 
poor,  nasty  isle,"  very  naturally.  But  the  natives,  in  their  feast 
at  the  end  of  the  fishing  season,  used  to  sing,  as  they  danced  a 
reel,  "  What  more  would  we  have !  There  is  store  of  cuddies  and 
sayth,  o{ perich  and  alachajt^  laid  up  for  us  in  Tigh-a-bharra." 

The  remote  and  inaccessible  nature  of  the  Highlands,  where  the 
law  had  never  run,  rendered  possible  the  famous  tragedy  of  Lady 
Grange.  The  Highland  chiefs,  in  ancient  days,  had  their  own 
modes  of  disembarrassing  themselves  of  inconvenient  wives,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Campbell  wife  of  Maclean,  who  was  exposed  on 
the  Lady  Rock  in  the  Sound  of  Mull.  The  success  of  that 
experiment  did  not  invite  a  repetition  thereof,  as  the  lady 
escaped,  and  her  husband  was  slain  in  Edinburgh  by  one  of  her 
near  kinsmen.  But  Robertson  of  Struan,  the  eccentric  Jacobite 
fighter  and  versifier,  had   nothing  to  fear  from  any  one  when,  in* 


380  LADY  grange's  STORY. 

the  eighteenth  century,  he  relieved  himself  from  the  society  of 
his  own  sister. 

As  Ramsay  tells  the  story,  the  estate  of  Struan  was  conveyed, 
after  1715,  "to  his  sister,  Mrs  Margaret,  for  behoof  of  him  and 
his  creditors.  .  .  ."  He  was  pardoned  in  1725,  and  "upon  his 
return  to  Rannoch  he  took  the  estate  entirely  into  his  own 
management,  turning  his  sister  out  of  possession,  and  treating  her 
in  a  manner  no  less  unnatural  than  illegal."  In  a  footnote  is 
added:  "He  first  imprisoned  her  on  a  small  island  at  the  head 
of  Loch  Rannoch,  on  which  there  was  no  house ;  then  he  sent 
her  to  the  Western  isles,  where  she  died  in  misery.  His  com- 
panions said  in  his  defence  that  she  was  both  an  imperious  and 
a  wretched  woman,  but  that  surely  did  not  mend  matters.  .  .  . 
She  was  the  daughter  of  General  Baillie,  of  whom  it  is  alleged 
that,  to  secure  the  succession,  she  had  an  active  hand  in  starving  her 
own  brother."  Perhaps  Struan  was  resolved  that  she  should  not 
starve  him.  The  anecdote  is  confused  :  Struan  was  her  brother, 
and  certainly  was  not  starved  to  death. ^^  The  lady's  case  is  a 
"kind  of  rehearsal  preparatory  to  the  tragedy  of  Lady  Grange,  in 
which  Lowlands  and  Highlands  combined  to  work  iniquity. 

The  story  of  Lady  Grange  reveals  a  much  more  extraordinary 
state  of  society  than  can  be  gathered  from  the  brief  sketch  given 
by  Mr  Hill  Burton  in  his  'History  of  Scotland.'^-  We  find  our- 
selves among  people  apparently  reckless  of  social  order,  or  subdued 
by  dread  of  persons  of  importance  and  influence.  The  wife  of 
Mar's  brother,  James  Erskine,  bearing  as  a  Lord  of  Session  the 
title  of  Lord  Grange,  was  Rachel  Chiesley,  daughter  of  that  ruffianly 
Chiesley  of  Dairy  who  murdered  the  Lord  President,  Sir  George 
Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  in  1689.  Lady  Grange  says  herself,  "He 
loved  me  two  years  ere  he  got  me,  and  we  lived  twenty-five  years 
together :  few  or  none  I  thought  so  happy."  ^^  The  pair  had 
eight  children.  Lady  Grange  admits  that  "  there  is  no  person  but 
has  a  fault;  but  ought  he  not  to  forgive  me?"  As  her  "only 
crime  is  loving  her  husband  too  much,"  it  seems  that,  in  her 
opinion,  her  fault  was  jealousy.  Lord  Grange,  in  that  case,  could 
not  possibly  agree  with  his  wife  in  thinking  that  "  few  or  none  were 
so  happy "  as  he  and  she.  Probably  he  was  miserable  when  in 
her  company,  and  as  frequently  absent  from  her  as  possible :  he 
often  visited  London. 

We   have  a  most  curious  account   of  Grange's  household  from 


CHARACTER  OF  LORD  GRANGE.  38 1 

Dr  Carlyle,  minister  of  Inveresk.  At  the  time  when  the  trouble 
came  to  a  head  Carlyle  was  a  little  boy  of  ten,  very  familiar  with 
the  young  Erskines,  Lord  Grange  being  the  patron  who  brought 
his  father  from  Annandale  to  be  minister  at  Prestonpans.  Carlyle 
heard  then,  or  probably  later,  that  in  London  Grange  had  a 
mistress,  Fanny  Lindsay,  who  kept  a  coffee-house  in  the  Hay- 
market.  Lady  Grange  found  this  out,  and  was  the  more  out- 
rageous. Grange  did  his  best  to  soothe  her, — "gave  her  the  whole 
management  of  his  affairs."  He  was  a  versatile  person,  devoted 
to  gardening,  and  he  constructed  labyrinths  and  groves  which 
people  came  from  Edinburgh  to  admire.  He  often  visited  Carlyle's 
father,  staying  late  in  the  night,  "  settling  the  high  points  of  Calvin- 
ism, for  their  creed  was  that  of  Geneva,"  and  of  the  Kirk.  They 
prayed  alternately  for  several  hours  before  supper,  "and  did  not 
part  without  wine," — a  good  deal  too  much  was  drunk,  as  Mrs 
Carlyle  suspected.  But  her  son  thought  that  Grange  was  chiefly 
anxious  to  avoid  his  wife.  In  their  house,  when  Carlyle,  as  a  child, 
played  with  their  children,  they  always  set  a  sentinel  at  the  door 
of  their  room,  "lest  my  lady  should  come  suddenly  upon  us, 
which  was  needless,  as  I  observed  to  them,  for  her  clamour  was 
sufficiently  loud  as  she  came  through  the  rooms  and  passages." 
Carlyle  describes  her  as  "gorgeously  dressed  ;  her  face  was  like 
the  moon,  and  patched  all  over,  not  for  ornament,  but  for  use. 
For  these  eighty  years  I  have  seen  nothing  like  her  but  General 
Dickson  of  Kilbacho,"  a  grog-faced  veteran.  She  reminded  Carlyle 
as  a  child  of  the  Great  Scarlet  Lady  of  Babylon,  "  with  whom  all 
well-educated  children  were  acquainted." 

Such  was  Lady  Grange,  a  terror  and  a  termagant,  soon  to  be 
parted  from  her  gorgeous  raiment.  Grange  himself  would  desert 
the  manse  for  half  a  year  at  a  time,  absenting  himself  entirely  from 
church,  and,  as  was  believed,  enjoying  himself  in  a  profane  manner. 
Carlyle  thought  that  he  was  really  as  sincere  in  religion  as  in 
debauchery,  having  seen  him  "drowned  in  tears  during  the  whole 
of  a  sacramental  Sunday."  He  had  also,  later  (1741),  heard 
Grange  and  Lovat  dispute  as  to  which  should  say  grace  at  a 
tavern  dinner.  Grange  "  very  observant  of  Lovat,  and  doing  every- 
thing to  please  him,"  as  indeed  Lovat  had  greatly  obliged  him  in 
a  very  intimate  matter.  They  ended  by  dancing  a  reel  with  the 
daughter  of  the  house,  a  girl  of  easy  virtue,  but  conveniently 
handsome.      Lovat's  young  son,  a  boy,  was  present  at  this  orgy, 


382  WODROW  ON   LADY  GRANGE. 

which  ended  in  a  pavilion  of  Grange's,  where  he  was  supposed  to 
entertain  ladies  less  awful  than  his  wife.  Here  he  kept  his  books 
on  dasmonology  and  witchcraft.  The  night  ended  "with  a  new 
deluge  of  excellent  claret."^* 

As  we  now  understand  the  charming  ways  of  Lord  and  Lady 
Grange,  it  is  not  so  strange  that  he  endeavoured  to  get  rid  of  the 
lady  as  that  he  was  permitted  with  complete  impunity  to  take 
the  steps  he  did,  though  the  facts  were  publicly  known,  and,  if  we 
believe  Lady  Grange,  with  the  connivance  of  the  leading  Jacobite 
chiefs  of  the  clans.  How  far  we  are  to  believe  her  is  another 
question,  but  she  certainly  makes  her  narrative  as  substantial  as 
possible.  That  Lady  Grange  really  made  herself  intolerable  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  Eight  years  after  Lord  Grange  removed  her 
to  a  very  considerable  distance,  St  Kilda, — 

"  Set  far  amid  the  melancholy  main," — 

he  reminded  Mr  Hope  of  Rankeilour  of  her  behaviour  when  a 
separation  had  been  arranged  by  friends  of  both  parties.  "  She 
often  attacked  my  house,  and  from  the  streets  and  among  the 
footmen  and  chairmen  of  visitors  cried  and  raged  against  me  and 
mine,  and  watched  for  me  in  the  streets,  and  chased  me  from 
place  to  place  in  the  most  indecent  and  shameless  manner,  and 
threatened  to  attack  me  on  the  Bench,"  causing  him  great  anxiety 
for  the  peace  of  the  honourable  Court  of  Session.^^  This  must 
have  been  true,  nor  did  Hope  contradict  it. 

The  unhappy  relations  between  husband  and  wife  were  generally 
known  as  early  as  July  1730.  Wodrow  then  confided  to  his  note- 
book that  "  things  have  been  very  dark  "  in  the  family  of  his  great 
and  devout  friend  since  Lady  Grange  took  up  a  jealousy  of  him, 
and  "  had  spies  upon  him  in  England  when  last  there  about  his 
son's  process  of  murder."  As  the  grandson  of  a  murderer,  young 
Mr  Erskine  may  have  followed  in  the  ancestral  path  :  they  were 
a  remarkable  family.  Lady  Grange  in  her  jealousy  intercepted 
her  lord's  letters,  "and  would  have  palmed  treason  upon  them." 
The  story  was  that  she  took  them,  with  a  Jacobitical  interpretation 
of  the  texts,  to  the  Lord  Justice-Clerk.  There  was  "  no  shadow 
for  the  inference";  but  as  Grange's  letters  were  to  Lord  Dun,  and 
as  Lord  Dun  was  intimate  with  Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  perhaps 
there  may  have  been  ground  for  suspicion.  In  June,  Wodrow 
heard,  (Grange   could   no   more   suffer  his  wife's  temper  and  habit 


HER   KIDNAPPING   (1732).  383 

of  drinking.  She  left  his  house,  and  he  did  not  recall  her,  "  since 
sometimes  she  attempted  to  murder  him,  and  was  innumerable 
ways  uneasy."  Lady  Grange  knew  that  her  husband  accused  her 
of  trying  to  kill  him,  and  warmly  denied  the  fact.  Lady  Grange 
now  "  gave  in  a  Bill  to  the  Lords,"  stating  her  case  and  demand- 
ing maintenance.  She  got  a  hundred  a-year,  and  promised  to 
live  separately.  Wodrow  hoped  that  the  stories  told  against  Lord 
Grange  were  calumnies  :  he  was,  indeed,  a  very  good  man,  and 
a  great  opponent  of  ecclesiastical  patronage,  wishing  to  "lodge 
all  in  the  hands  of  the  Christian  people  and  communicants."  ^'^ 

We  now  give  Lady  Grange's  own  narrative.  Writing  to  the 
Solicitor-General,  Charles  Erskine  of  Tinwald,  from  her  captivity 
at  St  Kilda  in  1738,  she  does  not  so  much  ask  for  legal  redress 
of  her  intolerable  wrongs  as  for  peace  to  be  made  between  herself 
and  her  husband.  "  I  pray  God  to  incline  your  hearts  to  intercede 
for  me ;  none  on  earth  has  so  much  power  with  Lord  Grange  as 
Lord  Dun  and  you  have.  If  you  both  favour  me,  I  hope  it  will 
do.  .  .  .  You  may  remember  the  Princess  Sobieski  [Clementina] 
went  to  a  monastery.  You  heard  the  reason,  no  doubt  [whatever 
that  reason  may  have  been  !],  and  yet  the  Pope  and  other  friends 
made  peace  for  her." 

If  Lord  Grange  will  not  listen  to  friends,  "  then  let  me  have  the 
benefit  of  the  law."  The  law  was  quite  powerless  to  restore  to 
liberty  the  wife  of  a  man  in  Grange's  position. 

The  lady  tells  her  story.  She  lodged  with  a  woman  named 
Margaret  Maclean,  in  Edinburgh :  she  would  have  been  more 
safe  with  a  Lowland  landlady.  About  eleven  o'clock  on  January  22, 
1732,  Margaret  opened  the  door  to  some  servants  of  Lovat's  and 
his  cousin,  Roderick  Macleod,  W.S.  Conceive  a  Writer  to  the 
Signet  being  engaged  in  deeds  so  nefarious  !  The  gang  seized 
Lady  Grange.  She  imprudently  told  Macleod  that  she  knew 
them.  In  the  struggle  they  knocked  out  some  of  her  teeth, 
bound  her,  fastened  a  cloth  over  her  face,  and  carried  her  down- 
stairs, no  man  making  them  afraid,  though  all  the  dwellers  on 
the  "  common  stair "  must  have  heard  the  uproar.  In  the  street 
they  had  a  sedan  chair,  in  which  sat  Foster  of  Carsebonny.  He 
seized  and  held  the  lady,  who  had  been  gagged.  They  carried 
her  to  one  of  the  "ports"  or  gates  of  the  town,  to  a  place  where 
six  or  seven  horses  waited  for  them.  It  was  moonlight.  She 
saw  and  recognised  a  Eraser,  a  page  of  Lovat's,  with  others  of  his 


384  SUFFERINGS  OF   LADY  GRANGE. 

retainers.  She  was  placed  on  horseback,  bound  to  Foster,  and 
taken  to  Polmaise,  the  house  of  a  Mr  Stewart,  to  whom  Foster  was 
factor.  Here  she  was  kept  in  "a  low  room."  She  knew  the 
people  who  had  charge  of  her,  a  farmer  named  Andrew  Leishman 
and  his  family.  Through  the  sons  and  daughter  she  tried  to  get 
messages  conveyed  to  the  ministers  of  Stirling,  "but  all  in  vain." 

After  seven  months  of  durance,  Peter  and  James  Fraser  pulled 
her  out  of  bed  and  set  her  on  a  horse  behind  Foster,  Andrew 
Leishman  accompanying  them  towards  the  north.  The  guide  was 
a  retainer  of  Sir  Alexander  Macdonald  of  Sleat.  Later  this  man 
married  Lady  Macdonald's  personal  attendant.  All  the  most  loyal 
Jacobite  clans  appear  to  have  had  members  engaged  in  or  cognisant 
of  the  abduction.  Grange  had  probably  persuaded  them  that  his 
wife  was  threatening  to  disclose  Jacobite  secrets.  Foster  left  Lady 
Grange  at  a  place  which  she  does  not  name,  and  Macleod,  with 
Lovat's  men,  conveyed  her  to  the  seaboard  of  Glengarry's  country. 
Some  of  the  Macdonnells  of  Scotus  or  Scothouse  (the  name  is 
variously  spelled),  cadets  of  Glengarry,  came  to  see  Lady  Grange, 
for  whom  a  sloop  lay  at  Lochhourn.  Thence  she  was  borne  to 
the  little  isle  of  Hesker,  belonging  to  Sir  Alexander  Macdonald. 
The  tenant  pitied  her,  and  might  have  helped  her  to  escape  :  in 
some  strange  way  she  had  money  with  her,  Mr  Macleod,  W.S., 
however,  bade  the  tenant  go  to  Clanranald's  house,  and  told  him 
that  Lady  Grange  was  to  be  taken  out  of  his  custody.  On  June  14 
two  Macleods  arrived  at  Hesker  in  a  galley,  seized  and  maltreated 
the  captive,  and  carried  her  off  to  "  the  vile,  nasty,  stinking,  poor  isle 
of  St  Kilda,"  whereof  one  of  these  two  Macleods,  John,  was  steward. 
Here  a  missionary  of  a  religious  society  heard,  and  wrote  down. 
Lady  Grange's  story,  but  we  know  not  whether  that  version  reached 
Erskine  of  Tinwald.  Two  years  after  her  letter  was  written  he  had 
done  nothing  traceable  for  her  rescue  and  protection. 

There  are  other  texts  of  Lady  Grange's  letter.  One  was  communi- 
cated by  Sir  George  Stewart  Mackenzie  of  Coull,  as  David  Laing 
supposed,  to  'The  Edinburgh  Magazine."^  The  correspondent 
describes  himself  as  "  a  member  of  a  numerous  Highland  clan,  not 
ashamed  to  avow,  while  I  lament,  tlie  savage  state  in  which  the 
Highlands  were  suffered  to  remain.  ..."  The  Lowlanders  in  this 
case  were  the  causes  of  the  barbarity.  In  this  text  Lady  Grange 
says  that  she  was  kidnapped  two  days  before  that  which  she  had 
fixed  on  for  her  journev  to  London.      The   details   do   not   differ 


ATTEMPT  TO   RESCUE   HER   (1740).  385 

much  from  what  is  told  in  her  shorter  letter,  already  cited,  but 
she  accused  Lovat  of  meeting  Foster  at  his  house  near  Stirling 
to  concert  measures  for  her  treatment.  In  St  Kilda  she  owed 
her  life  to  the  kindness  of  a  minister,  "  for  there  were  no  pro- 
visions sent  me  but  two  pecks  of  flour,  and  what  the  place  can 
afford."  The  minister  wrote  out  her  story,  but  dared  not  carry 
it  to  Edinburgh,  and  wished  to  procure  and  burn  the  narrative 
from  which  we  quote.  At  the  close  of  it  are  jotted  down  notes, — 
for  example,  that  Lovat  said  she  was  going  to  kill  her  husband. 
"Sir  Alexander  Macdonald,  at  any  time  he  wrote  about  me,  the 
name  he  gave  me  was  the  Carop"  (sic).  In  181 7,  a  woman 
who,  as  a  little  girl,  had  waited  on  Lady  Grange  in  St  Kilda, 
was  still  alive  in  North  Uist. 

Now  it  was  perfectly  well  known  in  Edinburgh,  from  the  first,  that 
Lady  Grange  was  alive,  and  in  obscure  confinement.  She  had  been 
on  the  point  of  going  to  London  when  she  was  seized,  and  probably 
her  intended  journey  was  the  reason  for  her  seizure.  Grange  did  not 
want  her  presence  in  town,  whether  she  was  likely  to  tell  true  or  false 
stories  about  Jacobite  intrigues  or  not.  From  the  number  and  im- 
portance of  the  Macleods,  Stewarts,  Erasers,  Macdonnells,  and  Mac- 
donalds  concerned  (if  she  tell  the  truth)  in  her  sufferings,  it  would 
seem  that  Grange  must  have  given  them  the  alarm.  They  could  not 
have  aided  in  and  connived  at  her  abduction  and  captivity  merely 
to  pleasure  Grange  in  a  domestic  quarrel.  She  could  not  have 
been  kept  so  long  in  St  Kilda  without  the  knowledge  of  Macleod, 
nor  in  Hesker  without  the  connivance  of  Sir  Alexander  Macdonald. 
Before  her  capture,  in  January  1732,  Lady  Grange  had  given  Mr 
Hope  of  Rankeilour  a  factory  (something  in  the  nature  of  a  power 
of  attorney),  which,  says  Hope  (December  13,  1740),  "I  told  her 
I  would  never  use  till  I  heard  she  was  at  a  distance  from  her 
husband,  so  as  she  could  not  disturb  him."^^  Now,  before 
September  16,  1732,  Hope  was  making  Lovat  uncomfortable  about 
his  alleged  share  in  the  abduction.  It  is  clear  that  Hope's  inquiries 
caused  Lovat  to  remove  Lady  Grange  from  Polmaise  and  send  her 
to  Hesker  in  September  1732.  In  that  month  Lovat  wrote  from 
Beaufort  to  a  cousin  in  Edinburgh,  inveighing  against  "  that  insol- 
ent fellow,  Mr  Hope  of  Rankeilour,"  and  threatening  to  ruin  him 
by  an  action  of  scanda/um  magnaium.  He  denied  that  he  knew 
where  Lady  Grange  then  was,  adding  that  he  would  not  be  ashamed 
if  he  had  put  "  that  damned  woman  "  out  of  the  way.^^ 

VOL.  IV.  2  B 


386  STORY  OF  glengarry's  wife  (1727). 

Lady  Grange's  letters  from  St  Kilda  of  January  20,  1738,  did 
not,  "by  unknown  hands,"  reach  Hope  and  the  Lord  Advocate 
till  December  1740.  Hope  (December  13,  1740)  wrote  to  the 
Advocate,  "  I  think  I  can't  in  duty  stand  [withstand]  this  call,  but 
must  follow  out  a  course  so  as  to  restore  her  to  a  seeming  liberty 
and  a  comfortable  life."  He  expresses  warm  indignation,  but 
supposes  that  Lord  Grange  does  not  know  the  facts.^°  We  know 
not  that  the  Lord  Advocate  took  any  steps,  but  on  January  6, 
1 741,  Hope  wrote  to  Lord  Grange,  then  in  London.  Grange 
replied  in  a  very  long  letter,  hinting  at  the  penalties  of  defamation  of 
character  and  at  sinister  motives  on  Hope's  side.  He  recounted 
his  wrongs,  professed  his  disbelief  in  the  stories,  his  confidence  in 
the  guardians  of  Lady  Grange,  his  intention  to  make  inquiries  and 
to  consult  her  friends.  Hope  answered  that  he  had  no  sinister 
motives,  that  he  had  even  prevented  Lady  Grange's  letters  from 
being  published.  The  threats  of  Grange  he  did  not  value,  nor 
would  he  again  address  Lord  Grange.  The  efforts  of  Hope  were 
probably  the  cause  of  Lady  Grange's  removal  to  Assynt,  in  Suther- 
land, and,  later,  to  Skye,  where  she  died  in  1745.  Her  husband 
survived  till  1754,  and  was  darkly  engaged  in  Jacobite  intrigues 
before  1745.  No  man  was  punished  for  the  series  of  cruel  wrongs; 
the  law  did  not  interfere ;  everywhere,  though  the  story  was  well 
known,  was  a  shameful  timidity  and  reserve,  a  conspiracy  of  silence 
broken  only  by  Mr  Hope. 

A  similar  tale  reaches  us  only  in  a  legendary  shape,  "  the  highest 
art  of  cruelty  and  villainy  of  the  Laird  of  Glengarry  to  his  Lady 
that  ever  I  almost  heard,"  so  Wodrow  writes.^^  What  really 
occurred — if  anything  unusual  occurred — is  unknown.  It  was  not 
easy  to  learn  what  was  happening  in  the  Highlands.  Wodrow's 
tale  is  that  Glengarry  wedded  a  Miss  Mackenzie,  granddaughter 
of  an  earl,  but  daughter  of  a  rich  goldsmith  in  Edinburgh.  She 
was  looked  down  on  as  a  tradesman's  daughter.  Attempts  were 
made,  in  a  ruffianly  manner,  to  trump  up  a  false  charge  of  adultery 
against  her,  and  to  poison  her.  Finally  she  was  sent  to  "  a  barren 
rock  in  the  sea,"  with  cruel  attendants.  Here  she  refused  food 
and  died.  About  this  Wodrow  heard  "  in  general  a  most  fearful 
outcry."  He  enters  this  anecdote  in  1727.  Ten  years  later, 
writing  from  Inverness,  the  author  of  'Letters  from  a  Gentleman 
in  the  North  of  Scotland '  gives  the  same  story  about  "  a  certain 
chieftain,"  unnamed.  He  does  not  pretend  to  know,  "it  is  un- 
certain," whether  husband  or  wife  was  to  blame.     "A  rough  old 


glengarry's  wife  (,1727).  387 

Highlander  "  of  about  sixty  was  "  imprisoned  at  one  of  the  barracks 
while  I  was  there  [1727]  for  accepting  favours  from  the  lady.  She 
was  to  be  sent  to  Edinburgh  to  answer  the  accusation,  and  while 
she  was  preparing  to  go,  and  the  messenger  waited  without  doors 
to  conduct  her  thither — she  died."  22 

If  the  author  were  really  at  Inverness  in  1727,  and  if  the  story  as 
told  by  Wodrow  were  true,  the  author  must  surely  have  heard  the 
real  facts.  Wodrow's  tale,  on  the  other  hand,  reads  as  if  it  were 
contaminated  with  the  old  story  of  the  Lady's  Rock  in  the  Sound 
of  Mull.  In  both  Wodrow's  and  the  other  version  the  wife  of 
the  chief  is  despised  as  the  daughter  of  a  tradesman ;  in  both  a 
charge  is  brought  against  her  virtue  (a  manufactured  charge,  in 
Wodrow's  version);  in  both  she  dies.  But  the  introduction  into 
Wodrow's  variant  of  the  banishment  to  a  desert  island  probably 
proves  no  more  than  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  information  as  to 
what  occurred  behind  the  veil  of  the  mountain  mists. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   XV. 

'  Fifth  edition,  Jamieson,  1818. 

2  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii.  254-267. 

'  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  i.  9,  10. 

*  Culloden  Papers,  p.    103,  quoting  letter  from  Evan  Baillie  of  Aberiachan, 
*  Edinburgh  Magazine,'  1785. 

^  Iliad,  xxiii.  826-835. 

*  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii.  41. 
'  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii,  56. 
8  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii.  342. 

*  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii.  344. 
^"  Scotland  and  Scotsmen  :   1888. 

^^  Ramsay,  Scotland  and  Scotsmen,  i.  32. 
12  Hill  Burton,  viii.  393-395. 

^='  Lady  Grange's  Letter  of  St  Kilda,  January  20,  1738.     Proc.  Sec.  Scot  Ant., 
xi.  602. 

'*  Carlyle's  Autobiography,  chaps,  i.,  ii. :  i860. 

"*  Miscellany  of  the  Spalding  Club,  iii.  59. 

^^  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iv.  165,  166,  254. 

"  The  Edinburgh  Magazine,  181 7,  i.  333-339. 

^^  Proc.  Soc.  Scot.  Ant.,  xi.  605. 

^*  Proc.  Soc.  Scot.  Ant.,  xi.  599,  600. 

^  Proc.  Soc.  Scot.  Ant.,  xi.  605. 

-^  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  426,  427. 

—  Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  North  of  Scotland,  ii.  1 16,  117. 


388 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

LIFE    IN    THE    LOWLANDS. 
1700-1745. 

Had  Ramsay  of  Ochtertyre  been  born  twenty  or  thirty  years  earlier 
than  he  was,  his  account  of  the  Highlanders  might  have  been  less 
sympathetic.  In  his  own  day  the  Highland  regiments  were  winning 
renown  under  the  British  standard.  Thirty  years  earlier  their  fathers 
may  have  been  ill  neighbours  to  Ochtertyre,  and  Ramsay  might 
have  written  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gartmore  author.  His  district, 
though  not  Highland,  was  not  Lowland  in  the  same  sense  as  the 
Lothians,  which  had  always  been  more  fertile  and  better  cultivated. 
His  region  was  a  middle  point  between  the  country  of  the  clans 
and  the  more  prosperous  southern  territory.  The  farmers  of  the 
better  class  had  probably  occupied  the  ground  since  the  old  days 
of  the  favoured  "  kindly  tenants."  The  ancient  grievance  of  agri- 
culturists, as  we  have  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  notice,  was 
that  they  held  not  by  leases,  but  at  pleasure,  and  might  be  turned 
out  by  a  freak  of  the  laird's.  Mary  of  Guise  lamented  their  pre- 
carious condition,  and  a  letter  of  Mary  Stuart  begs  a  laird  not  to 
turn  a  poor  woman  out  of  "  her  kindly  room." 

Such  lack  of  tenure  must  always  have  been  pernicious  to  agri- 
culture. In  central  Scotland  many  great  families  "  laid  it  down  as 
a  rule  never  to  change  tenants  that  behaved  well ;  neither  were  the 
rents  raised,  they  being  satisfied  with  grassums,  or  fines,  which, 
Lord  Stair  observes,  was  always  a  mark  of  kindness."  Lowland 
tenants,  from  whom  no  military  service  was  to  be  expected,  shared 
in  this  favourable  system.  The  tenants  accjuircd  "tacks,"  or  leases, 
after  the  Reformation,  when  "  their  hardships  made  them  solicitous 
to  have   legal   security."  ^     Probably  they  suffered   by  the  change 


LOWLAND  AGRICULTURE.  389 

from  Catholic  and  clerical  to  lay  and  Presbyterian  superiors.  The 
leases  were  usually  for  nineteen  years.  The  old  system  of  Steel  Bow, 
or  "taking  stock," — the  landlord  providing  horses,  cows,  sheep,  and 
implements,  which  the  tenant  had  to  restore  at  the  end  "f  his 
tack, — appears  to  have  gone  out,  by  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  in  the  Lowlands.  The  land  had  been  let  in  "  run  rig," 
—  "the  several  tenants  had  ridge  about  of  every  field,"  one  farmer 
having  one  ridge  in  several  fields.  Between  the  ridges  were  great 
"baulks,"  untilled,  covered  with  stones,  broom,  and  gorse.-  This 
was  a  truly  wasteful  system,  and  caused  much  bickering  among  the 
tenants,  being  a  survival  of  village  communities.  The  common 
field  and  run-rig  system  appears  to  have  prevailed  in  the  distant 
days  of  Homer. 

The  lands  were  ranked  as  "  infield,"  near  the  farmer's  house,  and 
"outfield."  The  infield  received  all  available  manure  and  was 
carefully  tilled,  the  outfield  was  dealt  with  "in  a  very  slovenly 
manner."  Sometimes  the  cattle  were  folded  in  the  outfield  in 
summer :  sometimes  sandy  outfields  were  laid  under  water  in 
winter.  On  outfields  beside  the  great  peat-mosses,  then  undrained, 
the  peat  refuse  was  burned  in  July,  and  the  following  crop  of  oats 
was  usually  good.  The  people  began  yearly  to  reclaim  a  strip  of 
moss,  converting  it  into  arable  land.  The  system  of  rotation  of 
crops  was  bad,  much  land  was  always  fallow ;  cattle  in  winter  were 
weakened  by  hunger,  for  lack  of  hay  and  other  foods ;  and  the 
use  of  lime  as  manure  was  discovered  late,  though  it  was  ardently 
adopted  when  it  was  discovered.  The  quality  of  grain  in  use,  early 
in  the  century,  was  bad.  "  White  oats  "  were  confined  to  the  best 
of  the  infields,  for  the  rest  the  black  or  the  grey  oats  sufficed.  In 
place  of  barley,  "  bear  "  was  commonly  sown,  and  was  made  into  bad 
bread.  Beans  came  in  late,  and  peas,  out  of  which  a  sour  heavy 
bread  was  made  till  recent  times,  were  not  in  favour.  The  little 
wheat  raised  was  "  of  a  red-bearded  kind,"  which  had  been  culti- 
vated since  the  days  of  the  Royal  Bruces  :  it  was  hardy,  and  needed 
little  manure,  while  the  flour  was  bought  by  the  people  of  the 
larger  towns. 

The  ploughs  and  harrows  were  little  better  than  those  of  the 
Highlands,  rather  resembling  the  plough  described  by  Virgil  in  the 
'Georgics,' — an  implement  not  yet  extinct  in  Italy.  They  were 
home-made  by  the  tenants;  the  timber  was  brought  down  by 
Highlanders,  at  Martinmas,  to  the  Doune  fair,  and  sold  for  a  shil- 


390  ,      FOOD  AND   HOUSES. 

ling  or  eighteenpence.  Everything  was  clumsy  and  cumbrous  and 
cheap,  the  object  of  the  tenants  being  frugality  rather  than  profit. 

The  farm  horses  were  not  much  better  than  the  Highland  ponies 
— "  small  and  weak."  The  difificulties  of  conveyance,  on  primitive 
roads,  was  a  prime  cause  of  inefficiency.  Corn  was  "  led "  from 
the  fields  to  the  barn  in  sledges.  These  were  slowly  superseded  by 
tumblers^  carts  with  wheels,  made,  in  prehistoric  fashion,  with  wheels 
of  solid  wood,  not  rimmed  with  iron.  This  Age  of  Wood  was 
probably  much  behind  that  of  the  Celtic  charioteers  who  fought 
against  Agricola.  Most  commodities,  even  coals,  were  carried  in 
sacks  or  packs,  slung  over  the  backs  of  horses.  The  tenants* 
cottages  were  hovels  built  of  turf,  "  fail,"  or  "  divots,"  but,  if 
well  thatched,  were  more  warm  and  dry  than  cottages  of  stone, 
or  "clay  biggins."  Stable  doors  were  made  of  wattle,  as  in  the 
days  of  St  Columba  and  his  missionaries.  The  cattle  wandered, 
from  harvest -time  to  May,  over  the  unenclosed  outfields,  tres- 
passing where  they  pleased.  The  clothes  of  men  were  mainly 
home-made,  "few  of  the  topping  tenants  having  either  boots  or 
saddles.  .  .  ."  Their  food  was  bear -meal  porridge:  oatmeal 
porridge  was  a  luxury.  When  Ramsay  wrote,  wheaten  bread  was 
more  common  than  oatcakes  had  been  in  his  father's  day.  "  Water 
kail "  made  without  any  meat  was  a  standing  dish.  The  table  of 
Laird  Milnwood  in  '  Old  Mortality '  was  luxurious  compared  with 
that  of  the  Stirlingshire  farmer.  It  was  most  unusual  to  kill  a  cow 
to  be  salted  at  Martinmas ;  but,  as  time  went  on,  most  tenants 
salted  a  cow  or  two.  Onions,  imported  from  Flanders,  were  eaten 
raw  as  "kitchen"  to  the  bread.  The  Highlanders  were  better 
supplied,  according  to  the  song — 

There's  naught  in  the  Highlands  but  syboes  and  leeks, 
And  bare-leggit  lads  gaun  wanting  the  breeks, — 
Wanting  the  l)reeks,  and  without  hose  and  shoon  ; 
But  we'll  a'  get  the  breeks  when  King  Jamie  comes  hame." 

Whisky  seems  to  have  been  absent,  and  very  little  ale  was  brewed : 
here  again  the  Highlanders,  as  far  as  whisky  went,  had  the  superi- 
ority. "They  were  in  general  well  pleased  with  their  lot.  What- 
ever might  be  their  grievances,  the  meanness  of  their  food  and 
raiment  seldom  gave  them  a  moment's  disquietude."  They  were  a 
Spartan  people.  To  judge  by  all  accounts,  and  by  such  proverbs 
as  "  the  clarticr  the  cosier,"  they  were  the  reverse  of  a  clean  people. 
But  on  this  topic  it  is  needless  to  enlarge,  and  evidence  for  the 


ENCLOSURES.  39 1 

fact  is  superabundant.  Such  diseases  as  prosper  through  dirt 
appear  to  have  been  as  common  in  the  Lowlands  as  in  the 
Highlands. 

Granting  the  defects  of  the  system,  it  was  that  which  long  experi- 
ence pointed  out  as  the  best  under  their  conditions  :  it  is  not  easy 
to  figure  a  scheme  by  which  the  same  quantity  of  grain  could  be 
raised  for  the  same  money.  These  farmers,  though  apparently  on 
the  border  of  starvation,  were  moneyed  men,  "  It  is  astonishing 
what  sums  of  money  the  tenants  of  the  last  age  had  out  at  interest 
with  the  gentlemen  of  the  country."  They  never  spent  anything, 
obviously ;  all  was  home-made,  except  two  or  three  cloth  great- 
coats bought  in  the  course  of  a  lifetime.  Two  generations  earlier 
than  Ramsay's  day  the  merits  of  liming  the  land  had  been  dis- 
covered :  one  man  limed  one  ridge  in  a  field  of  many  ridges,  and 
the  landlord  "  offered  to  take  the  crop  of  that  single  ridge  as  pay- 
ment of  his  rent."  If  rents  were  not  raised,  and  if  the  farmer  limed 
all  his  ridges,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  he  became  opulent.  When  "  run 
rig  "  was  abolished,  and  each  man  had  his  separate  farm  to  himself, 
much  waste  was  avoided :  the  outfield  system  ceased ;  beans, 
barley,  and  oats  were  the  crops.  About  1735  these  improve- 
ments, with  a  rise,  but  not  an  exorbitant  rise,  in  rents,  were  made 
at  Ochtertyre.  Wages,  partly  in  money,  partly  in  clothes,  were 
extremely  low  :  there  was  a  Union  among  the  hinds  to  raise  them, 
but  their  demands  were  moderate  indeed. 

Enclosures  for  the  benefit  of  cattle  intended  for  the  English 
market  were,  when  first  made,  a  bitter  grievance.  In  Galloway, 
about  1724,  there  was  a  rising  against  enclosures:  the  rights  and 
wrongs  of  the  matter  are  not  easy  to  disentangle.  As  Wodrow 
heard  at  first  (May  1724),  Galloway,  Nithsdale,  and  the  shire  of 
Dumfries  were  perambulated  by  five  or  six  hundred  *'  Levellers " 
or  "Dyke-breakers,"  armed.  "It  is  certain,"  he  says,  "that  great 
depopulations  have  been  made  in  the  South,  and  multitudes  of 
families  turned  out  of  their  'tacks'  and  sent  awandering."  In 
some  parishes,  he  adds,  only  five  or  six  families  of  cultivators  were 
left.^  But,  in  June,  a  friend  who  had  been  in  Galloway  gave  a 
different  colour  to  the  business.  The  agriculture  in  Galloway,  he 
said,  was  indolent  and  wasteful ;  "  they  generally  ran  out  the  land 
prodigiously,  .  .  .  their  arable  ground  is  turned  to  nothing 
by  being  ploughed  two  years,  and  left  lee  [fallow]  only  one,"  while 
tenants  were  in  arrears  of  from  three  to  six  years  with  their  rents. 


392  THE   LEVELLERS  (1725). 

The  landowners  were  thus  induced  to  make  enclosures :  tenants 
were  refusing  either  to  pay  or  to  go.  Two  had  held  a  meeting, 
and  made  up  an  alliance,  with  a  "  band,"  in  the  old  fashion.  They 
collected  "crows,"  or  "pinches"  such  as  quarrymen  use,  and  threw 
down  the  loose  stone  walls,  refusing  to  accept  any  terms  from  the 
landlords.  They  seized  and  slaughtered  cattle,  under  the  pretence 
that  they  were  of  Irish  importation,  and  three  ministers  were  said 
to  be  their  instigators.  A  Major  du  Carry,  commanding  four  troops 
of  horse,  was  averse  to  harsh  measures  against  the  Levellers,  who 
issued  their  manifestoes  in  the  old  fashion,  and  made  some  riots, 
with  the  women,  as  at  Glasgow  during  the  Malt  riots,  at  the  front. 
The  women  of  Galloway  had  been  prominent  in  the  tumults  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  their  presence,  of  course,  was  embarrass- 
ing to  the  military,  and  was  intended  so  to  be.  In  the  winter 
months  the  agitation  increased,  and  a  minister's  yard  dyke,  or 
garden  wall,  was  overthrown  because  he  made  his  beadle  take  down 
a  manifesto  from  his  kirk  door.*  By  June  1725  "the  soldiers  have 
calmed  them,"  writes  Wodrow,  and  Lord  Stair  had  a  plan  for 
establishing  manufactories,  which  led  to  little  good.  The  true  cause 
of  the  explosion  was  great  poverty,  and  great  ignorance  of  agriculture. 

At  this  date,  1724,  potatoes  and  turnips  were  being  experi- 
mentally introduced  by  Cockburn  of  Ormiston,  but  so  long  as 
turnips  were  sown  broadcast  they  naturally  did  not  flourish.  Such 
as  came  to  perfection  were  regarded  as  curious  relishes  rather  than 
as  food  for  cattle.  Potatoes,  though  already  not  unfamiliar  in 
gardens,  were  looked  on  with  suspicion  in  South  Uist,  where 
Clanranald  introduced  them  before  1745.^  It  was  not  till  after 
the  Rising  that  the  landlords  who  practised  English  methods  of 
husbandry  began  to  make  converts  among  their  tenantry,  who  had 
previously  looked  with  amusement  and  distrust  at  the  agricultural 
freaks  of  the  gentry.  Lads  who  had  been  in  the  service  of  improv- 
ing lairds,  and  who  understood  the  new  ploughs  and  new  methods, 
now  more  sensibly  adapted  to  Scottish  conditions,  took  service  with 
the  farmers.  It  was  no  longer  thought  a  sacrilegious  usurpation  of 
the  function  of  Providence  to  employ  fanners  in  mills.  The  Anti- 
burgher  preachers  were  accused  of  "testifying  against  fanners,  as  a 
creating  of  wind  and  distrusting  of  Providence.  .  .  .  But  this 
scrupulosity  being  contrary  to  self-interest,  made  little  impression  on 
their  followers."® 

Considering  the  value  which  Scotland  has  always  set  on  educa- 


EDUCATION    STARVED.  393 

tion,  and  remembering  the  schools  which  existed  before  the  Refor- 
mation, and  the  admirable  dispositions  planned  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  it  is  disappointing  to  find  that,  even  in  the  Lowlands, 
education  was  starved  in  the  early  eighteenth  century.  In  almost 
any  age,  and  in  almost  any  circumstances,  persons  with  a  love  of 
learning  and  of  study  will  find  means  to  educate  themselves.  The 
majority  may  remain  as  ignorant  as  it  likes  to  be, — and  ignorance 
must  have  been  general  when  the  precentor  had  to  read  aloud,  not 
always  correctly,  each  pair  of  verses  in  a  psalm  before  the  congrega- 
tion could  venture  on  singing  it,  a  method  still  extant  in  living 
memory, — but  the  right  people,  the  people  who  would  learn  and 
were  meant  by  nature  to  learn,  did  learn  in  Scotland.  As  men 
were  strong  and,  save  for  the  agues  caused  by  undrained  lands  and 
for  the  maladies  of  dirt,  were  healthy,  despite  their  poor  fare,  so 
they  acquired  Latin,  and  a  love  of  Latin  literature,  despite  the 
poverty-stricken  estate  of  schools  and  schoolmasters.  There  might 
be  twelve  parishes  in  the  Presbytery  of  Ayr  without  schools  as  late 
as  1735,  but,  thanks  to  some  poor  student  in  his  vacations,  or  in 
some  other  casual  manner,  people  like  Burns  and  his  brothers 
later  did  wonderfully  manage  to  become  educated. 

Reports  of  1696  to  a  Parliamentary  Commission  speak  of  Kil- 
maurs  and  Dreghorn  without  schoolmaster's  salary,  or  house,  or 
school,  and  of  Dunlop  with  only  "a  poor  man  that  teaches  to  read 
and  write  " ;  of  Ardrossan,  with  no  supply  for  the  teacher,  beyond 
a  salary  of  three  bolls  of  meal,  "given  by  my  Lord  Montgomery 
at  pleasure  " ;  while  six  bolls  of  meal  at  Fenwick  rewarded  "  a  poor 
honest  man  who  taught  reading  and  writing."  Taking  the  boll  at 
ten  shillings  sterling,  we  shall  probably  estimate  it  too  high.  We 
even  learn  that  "  no  schoolmaster  in  the  Presbytery  teaches  Latin  " ; 
yet  we  may  be  sure  that,  by  hook  or  by  crook,  Latin,  then  necessary 
for  a  minister,  was  learned  in  the  Presbytery  of  Ayr  by  ambitious 
youths.'^  It  seems  probable  that  the  ministers,  who  assiduously 
endeavoured  to  extract  funds  for  education  from  the  hard-fisted 
heritors  and  people,  must  themselves  have  instructed  boys  of  lively 
parts.  Students  on  holiday  and  "  sticket  ministers "  gained  a  few 
shillings  by  teaching  in  kirks  or  barns,  and  religious  education,  by 
way  of  catechising,  had  always  been  liberally  given  by  the  ministers. 
The  peasants  whom  Bishop  Burnet  found  so  full  of  Biblical  texts, 
and  so  eager  in  controversy,  cannot  have  relied  merely  on  memory, 
but  must  have  read  their  Bibles.     The  large  numbers  of  religious 


394  SCHOOLS. 

diaries  kept  by  men  and  women  in  humble  life  attest  the  wide 
diffusion  of  writing.  People  of  great  natural  intelligence,  with  keen 
theological  and  political  interests,  can  acquire  knowledge  where  the 
iron-witted  remain  wholly  untaught. 

The  law  required  the  heritors  to  provide  a  school-house  in  each 
parish,  but  when  the  kirks  were  so  ill-equipped,  and  when  the 
manse  was  often  so  small  and  dark,  money  for  school-houses  could 
not  be  extracted  from  heritors,  often  poor  struggling  gentlefolks, 
living  on  rents  paid  in  kind.  The  Kirk-Session  always  did  its 
best:  the  case  of  Cramond  (17 17)  shows  how  bad  that  best  may 
be.  Poverty  extended  to  the  article  of  straw.  The  thatch  of  the 
roof  of  the  school-house  was  rotten  ;  the  Kirk-Session  ordered  each 
pupil  to  bring  some  straw  to  repair  the  thatch,  but  only  straw 
enough  to  cover  half  of  the  building  could  be  obtained.  As  for 
fuel,  each  scholar  brought  his  own  peat,  trudging  with  it  barefoot 
through  wet  and  dry ;  carrying  rushes  and  straw  too,  for  covering  of 
the  floor  on  which  he  was  to  crouch  over  his  books.^  In  some 
rural  parishes  the  teacher,  like  the  tailor,  went  from  house  to  house, 
boarded  with  the  cottar,  and  giving  instruction  in  any  empty 
outhouse. 

His  legal  salary  was  not  over  ten  pounds  annually,  eked  out 
by  a  casual  half-guinea  from  a  generous  town  council,  and  by  such 
fees  of  a  shilling  a  quarter  from  each  child  as  he  could  extract. 
Socrates  might  have  been  amused  by  the  festival  of  Fastern's- 
E'en,  when  the  young  sportsmen  brought  each  his  fighting-cock, 
paying  to  the  schoolmaster  an  entry  of  a  shilling,  and  using  the 
schoolroom  as  a  cockpit.  The  bodies  of  the  combatants  that  fell 
were  the  dominie's  perquisite,  and  he  and  his  family  could  enjoy 
cocky-leeky  for  a  brief  season.  The  "  fugy  cocks,"  the  cowards, 
were  fastened  up  as  cockshots  :  the  gentlemen  patrons  were  admitted 
free  to  the  recreation,  though  at  such  a  time,  if  ever,  the  heritors 
might  have  displayed  their  liberality.  At  Dumfries  (1725)  it  was 
"  the  under-teacher  "  who  kept  the  door  and  received  the  shillings  : 
there  were  two  dominies.^  At  St  Andrews,  in  1755,  the  two 
teachers  of  the  grammar-school  shared  the  "  cock  money  "  equally. 
In  1768  the  Kirk-Session  of  Kinghorn,  moved  by  the  school- 
master, observed  that  cock-fighting  was  a  cruel  sport,  and  approved 
of  the  proposal  to  put  it  down  ;  but  in  many  places  it  lasted  till  the 
end  of  the  century.  The  strange  thing  is  that  the  Kirk  awoke  so 
tardily  to  the  evils  of  what  was  not  only  cruel,  but  amusing. 


THE   DOMINIE.  395 

The  very  name  of  Fastern's-E'en  was  "a  rag  of  Rome,"  of  Shrove 
Tuesday,  as  was  the  name  of  Candlemas,  February  2,  a  great  day 
for  the  dominie.  Each  child  presented  a  gift  to  the  master  as  he 
sat  at  his  desk,  with  the  tawse  in  abeyance.  The  gifts  ranged, 
according  to  the  wealth  and  goodwill  of  the  parents,  from  sixpence 
to  half-a-guinea,  and,  as  they  were  announced,  were  greeted  with 
more  or  less  applause ;  the  dominie  leading  the  cheers  with  vivat, 
floreat  bis,  and  so  on,  the  highest  givers  being  saluted  as  "  king " 
or  "queen,"  and  carried,  on  cross  -  hands,  "the  king's  chair," 
along  the  streets  in  triumph.  In  1643  John  Keith,  brother  of  the 
Earl  Marischal,  was  king,  and  was  accompanied  by  a  procession  of 
candle-bearers,  manifestly  a  popish  survival,  to  the  horror  of  the 
commissary  clerk,  who  beheld  and  recorded  the  event.  The 
children  marched  round  the  Cross,  or  what  was  left  of  it,  and  this 
in  1643.  Even  in  the  nineteenth  century  the  "king"  of  Lanark 
school  had  his  procession  of  palm-bearers  on  Palm  Sunday,  so 
inveterate  were  the  popular  reminiscences  of  the  ancient  faith. ^"^ 
On  the  first  Mondays  of  May,  June,  and  July,  holidays  were  given, 
and  shillings  were  paid  in  commutation  of  an  older  contribution  of 
bent-grass  or  rushes  to  strew  the  floor  of  the  school. 

The  dominie  was  the  "  handy  man  "  of  a  parish,  precentor  if  he 
had  the  gift  of  song,  and  clerk  to  the  Kirk-Session.  As  the  grades 
of  gifts  prove,  the  boys  were  of  various  ranks,  and  met  on  the  most 
democratic  footing  of  equality,  though  a  few  sons  of  noblemen  went 
to  Eton,  and,  as  Lovat's  letters  show,  there  was  a  school  of  gentility 
at  Dalkeith.  His  two  sons  "  should  stay  at  Dalkeith  till  they  were 
masters  of  their  Latin,"  thence  they  were  to  go  for  two  or  three 
years  to  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  and  then  were  to  learn  "  the 
civil  laws,  and  the  other  parts  of  learning  that  they  would  be  capable 
of"  in  Holland.  As  the  Master  of  Lovat  was  "so  tender"  that  his 
father  dared  not  send  him  to  the  South,  one  of  the  Dalkeith  ushers 
was  engaged  to  be  his  tutor  in  the  North.  Thus  Lovat  (1737) 
defended  himself  against  "the  aspersion"  that  he  meant  to  educate 
his  boys  in  France.^^  Lovat's  friend,  the  famous  Duncan  Forbes 
of  Culloden,  spent  his  own  school  days  at  Inverness  before  going 
to  Edinburgh  University.  Dalkeith  had  long  been  a  successful 
seminary,  for  there  the  celebrated  Jacobite  wit  and  physician, 
Pitcairn,  began  his  Latin  studies,  as  a  boy,  before  1668,  when  he 
entered  Edinburgh  University. 

Pitcairn  was  the  patron  of  a  scholar  whose  career  is  instructive  as 


396  RUDDIMAN. 

regards  the  educational  profession  in  Scotland  during  the  earlier 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Thomas  Ruddiman  was  born  in 
October  1674,  one  of  several  sons  of  the  farmer  of  Raggel,  on  the 
shore  of  the  Moray  Firth.  It  was  a  loyal  part  of  Scotland,  and  the 
tears  which  his  father  shed  on  hearing  of  the  death  of  Charles  II. 
were  never  forgotten  by  the  boy,  who  throughout  life  was,  in  all 
senses,  "  of  the  honest  party."  At  the  parish  school,  near  his 
father's  cottage,  he  studied  Simpson's  Latin  Grammar,  which  he  was 
born  to  supersede  by  *  Ruddiman's  Rudiments'  (17 14),  a  book  still 
in  use  as  late  as  i860.  Ovid  was  his  first  favourite  among  the 
Roman  poets,  "  with  his  moral  examples,  and  with  his  useful  lessons 
of  life,"  says  his  biographer.  At  the  age  of  sixteen  the  young 
scholar  determined,  in  Scots  phrase,  "  to  fend  for  himself."  He 
had  heard  with  eagerness  that  "  the  munificence  of  the  North  had 
established,  in  the  universities  of  Scotland,  various  foundations 
which  are  there  called  Bursaries,  and  which,  as  they  amount  to 
nine,  or  twelve,  or  fifteen  pounds  a -year,  enable  the  students, 
during  four  terms,  to  acquire  a  competent  knowledge  of  Greek, 
of  physics,  and  of  metaphysics." 

Ambitious  of  the  competent  knowledge  thus  to  be  won,  young 
Ruddiman  secretly  stole  off  on  his  march  to  Aberdeen,  rich  in  a 
guinea  presented  to  him  by  his  sister  Agnes.  He  was  met,  stripped, 
and  robbed  by  gipsies,  and  it  was  a  deplorable  but  resolute  boy 
who  entered  Aberdeen.  However,  he  was  easily  first  in  the 
examination,  which  was  limited  to  an  essay  in  Latin.  He  studied 
under  the  philosophic  Professor  William  Black,  who  "  was  accurately 
informed  as  to  the  theory  of  pumps  and  the  uses  of  the  barometer. 
He  was  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  solar  system,  though  he  had 
little  mathematical  science.  He  had  studied,  indeed,  Des  Cartes ; 
he  had  heard  of  Locke,  yet  he  knew  nothing  of  Newton." 

To  the  theory  of  the  common  pump  and  the  uses  of  the  bar- 
ometer, young  Ruddiman  preferred  the  classical  languages  and 
literature.  Among  his  contemporaries  at  college  was  Lovat,  then 
a  wild  boy  enough,  and  "  Dunlop,  the  well-known  watchmaker,  who, 
being  an  honester  man,  rose  to  be  a  more  useful,"  though  less  con- 
spicuous, "citizen."  After  taking  his  Master's  degree  (1694)  Ruddi- 
man acted  as  private  tutor  in  the  family  of  Mr  Young  of  Auldbar, 
great-grandson  of  Sir  Teter  Young,  the  tutor  of  James  VI.  At  the 
age  of  twenty-one  he  became  schoolmaster  of  Laurencekirk  in  the 
Mearns,  a  village  which  had  not  yet  acquired  the  honours  of  a  burgh 


RUDDIMAN.  397 

of  barony.  This  seemed  unambitious,  for  his  highest  salary,  if  the 
heritors  could  be  brought  to  pay  it,  would  amount  to  no  more  than 
two  hundred  merles,  as  settled  by  a  statute  of  1633.  He  was  paid 
chiefly  in  grain,  and  his  grain  he  sold  at  a  high  price  to  his  uncle, — 
for  these  were  the  famous  years  of  dearth  of  King  William,  when 
many  died  of  hunger.  The  salary  of  the  headmaster  of  Edinburgh 
High  School,  in  1709,  was  fixed  at  j£i6,  13s.  4d.  sterling.  How 
many  bolls  of  grain  made  up  Ruddiman's  salary  we  know  not, — 
probably  not  many  more  than  six,  oats  then,  on  an  average,  bring- 
ing ten  shillings  the  boll. 

Happily  for  Ruddiman,  in  1699  Dr  Pitcairn  happened  to  pass  a 
night  at  the  inn  of  Laurencekirk,  and,  desiring  a  companion  to  dine 
with  him,  was  introduced  to  the  schoolmaster.  Both  were  Jacobites, 
both  were  lovers  of  the  Latin  Muse,  and  Pitcairn  invited  Ruddiman 
to  Edinburgh.  Here  he  worked,  in  an  unofficial  way,  at  the  Advo- 
cates' Library,  founded,  mainly  by  Sir  George  Mackenzie,  "  bluidy 
Mackenzie,"  about  1682.  In  1702  Ruddiman  became  assistant 
librarian.  His  salary  was  a  hundred  pounds  Scots,  or  ^8,  6s.  8d.  in 
sterling  money.  This  was  indeed  promotion,  and  the  salary  was 
increased  by  perquisites  and  fees,  and  payment  for  copying  manu- 
scripts, chronicles,  and  chartularies.  He  also  took  private  pupils, 
and  Dr  Pitcairn  gave  him  two  guineas, — a  great  sum  to  a  needy 
scholar.  His  note-book  shows  that  the  weekly  expenses  of  his 
family  amounted  to  three  pounds  Scots.  In  17 10  Ruddiman  cal- 
culated that  his  worldly  means  amounted  to  less  than  £z°'^  Scots ; 
and  the  expenses  of  his  wife's  funeral,  in  the  same  year,  were  ;!^3o5 
Scots, — a  characteristic  disproportion.  By  this  time  the  Faculty  of 
Advocates,  hearing  that  Ruddiman  was  invited  to  be  schoolmaster 
at  Dundee,  raised  his  salary  to  ^30  sterling  (^^363,  6s.  8d.  Scots). 
His  wife's  funeral  had  cost  him  more  than  a  year's  salary  on  the 
former  scale.  Mr  Grey  Graham  remarks  that  "the  cost  of  a  funeral 
was  sometimes  equal  to  a  year's  rental";  and,  in  1704,  the  funeral 
of  Lord  Whitelaw,  a  judge,  cost  ^423  sterling,  equivalent  nearly  to 
two  years'  salary.^^  There  is  something  barbaric  in  these  dispro- 
portionate funereal  expenses. 

Ruddiman's  editorial  industries  contributed  to  his  modest  wealth, 
and  his  Latin  Grammar  passed  through  three  editions  in  six  years, 
through  fifteen  editions  during  his  life.  We  hear  with  a  sensible 
interest  that  he  kept  his  copyright.  His  later  works  do  not  at 
present  concern   us,   but   Ruddiman's   example   shows   the   highest 


398  STUDIES. 

mark  to  which  scholarship,  in  his  day,  could  carry  a  layman  who 
depended  on  his  learning  for  his  livelihood.  When  David  Hume 
succeeded  Ruddiman  as  Librarian  to  the  Advocates,  his  salary  was 
but  forty  pounds  a-year.^^ 

The  poverty  which  oppressed  the  burghs  and  their  schools  was 
due,  says  their  historian,  to  "  the  old  dilapidations  of  the  common 
good,  and  the  wholesale  alienations  which  gradually  diminished  the 
original  endowments  of  several  burghs,  until  at  last  there  was  only 
left  a  wreck  hardly  sufficient  for  paying  the  salaries  even  of  the 
common  officers."  Efforts  were  then  made  to  raise  the  funds  by 
"stents"  or  assessments.  These  were  unpopular.  In  1707  the 
school  of  Linlithgow,  Ninian  Winzet's  old  school,  was  shut  up, 
400  merks  to  the  schoolmaster  being  "  a  heavy  burden  to  the 
town."  But  what  caused  "  the  dilapidations  of  the  common 
good "  ?  One  cause  was  certainly  the  wasteful  conviviality  of 
the  town  councils.  Mr  Grant,  however,  declares  that  he  has 
hardly  met  with  an  instance  in  which  the  municipal  authorities 
repudiated  the  payment  of  the  schoolmaster's  salary,  and  insists 
that  they  discharged  their  task  "  with  marvellous  uprightness  and 
regularity."  ^*  They  were  "  patriotic,  generous,  liberal,"  and 
thoughtful :  still,  we  regret  the  "  dilapidations." 

As  for  the  studies,  Latin  was  the  chief  of  them,  and  in  not  a 
few  schools  Greek  was  also  taught,  or  supposed  to  be  taught,  in 
the  grammar-schools,  though  down  to  the  time  of  Sir  Walter  Scott, 
and  the  foundation  of  the  Edinburgh  Academy,  Greek,  on  the 
whole,  was  confessedly  neglected  in  Scotland,  and  the  junior  Greek 
class  at  the  universities  was  occupied  with  rudimentary  work. 
The  custom  was  that  the  master  carried  his  pupils  through  from 
the  elements  of  Latin  to  the  highest  class,  and  each  boy,  however 
backward,  went  up  with  his  form  every  year — a  scheme  of  which  the 
disadvantages  are  too  obvious.  A  good  elementary  teacher  might 
be  no  scholar,  and  a  boy  of  stupid  nature  or  of  indolence  wandered 
into  yearly  thickening  darkness.  This  practice  of  yearly  promotion 
did  not  prevail  universally  during  the  relatively  learned  years  of  the 
late  sixteenth  century  —  indeed,  it  has  never  been  universal  in 
Scotland,  though  very  common.  The  grammar  books  before  that 
of  Ruddiman,  who  gave  an  English  translation,  were  written  in 
the  language  which  the  pupil  was  expected  to  learn  —  in  Latin. 
Plays  were  acted  by  the  boys.  In  1734  they  of  Dalkeith  acted 
"Julius  Cffisar,"  "with  a  judgement  and  address  inimitable  at  their 


ST   ANDREWS   UNIVERSITY.  399 

years,"  says  'The  Caledonian  Mercury,'  a  newspaper  managed  by 
Ruddiman.  In  the  same  year  the  Perth  grammar-school  boys 
acted  Addison's  '*  Cato,"  though  none  of  them  had  ever  entered  a 
theatre.  The  Kirk -Session  of  Perth,  however,  denounced  this 
profane  exercise,  also  the  play  of  "George  Barnewell,"  and  a 
sermon  was  preached  against  "converting  the  school  into  a 
playhouse,  whereby  youth  are  diverted  from  their  studies  and 
employed  in  the  buffooneries  of  the  stage," — as  if  "Cato  "were  a 
farce.^^  "  Stage  plays "  were  censured,  among  other  "  provoca- 
tions to  uncleanness."  Addison  is  not,  however,  a  provocative 
dramatist. 

The  "world's  wolter,"  of  the  year  of  the  Spanish  Armada,  made 
it  impossible  for  James  VI.,  as  he  confessed,  to  give  his  undivided 
mind  to  the  needs  and  grievances  of  the  University  of  St  Andrews. 
Some  sixty  years  of  the  seventeenth  century  had  been  what  his 
Majesty  called  "a  world's  wolter":  the  universities  had  suffered 
thereby  in  many  ways,  especially  since  the  rival  religious  parties, 
as  they  alternately  triumphed,  turned  out  such  professors  and 
regents  as  adhered  to  the  defeated  faction.  In  1696  a  University 
Commission  visited  St  Andrews,  and  their  report  of  their  proposals, 
with  the  answers  made  by  the  authorities  of  St  Leonard's  and 
St  Salvator's  Colleges,  discloses  the  conditions  of  education.  The 
University  clung  to  the  system  of  "  regenting,"  by  which  a  regent 
carried  his  whole  class  for  four  years  through  the  whole  domain 
of  academic  knowledge,  from  the  elements  to  "  the  Physics  general 
and  special."  Nobody  was  less  of  a  specialist  than  the  regent 
himself,  who  thus  in  a  small  way  "  took  all  knowledge  to  be  his 
province."  The  Commissioners,  with  Crawford  and  Ruthven  at 
their  head,  were  anxious  to  break  up  a  system  which  seemed  to 
expect  to  find  in  every  regent  an  Admirable  Crichton.  "  It  is 
the  opinion  of  the  Committee  that  the  Professor  of  the  Greek 
tongue  be  fixed  to  the  class,  there  being  far  fewer  eminent  in  that 
skill  than  in  Philosophy,  and  that  nothing  be  taught  in  that  year 
but  Greek."  It  is,  indeed,  unseemly  that  "many  an  old  philos- 
ophy" which  once  "on  Argive  heights  divinely  sung"  should  be 
learned  and  taught  by  persons  not  versed  in  the  Argive,  or  Attic, 
original  treatises.  Despite  the  enterprise  of  Andrew  Melville,  and 
other  scholars  of  the  sixteenth  century,  Scotland  had  never  a  sufl!ic- 
ient  share  of  Greek,  though  Puffendorff  and  Morhofius  (1680-1725) 
were  able  to   speak  highly  of  Scottish   Latinists.      Sir  Alexander 


400  THE   CLASSICS. 

Grant  justly  remarked  that  "it  was  one  of  the  points  of  similarity 
between  the  Scots  and  the  French  that  neither  of  the  two  nations 
ever  took  very  kindly  to  Greek.  Whether  this  was  due  to  external 
causes,  or  was  connected  in  some  way  with  other  national  char- 
acteristics, it  would  be  hard  to  say.  But  it  seems  a  fact  that 
while  German  and  English  scholars  have  inclined  to  Hellenism, 
French  and  Scottish  scholars  have,  till  lately,  confined  themselves 
to  Latinity."i6 

Probably  the  Scots,  more  familiar  with  France  than  with  England, 
Germany,  or  Italy,  merely  followed  the  French  example,  while  the 
French  themselves  have  ever  been  chiefly  addicted  to  a  language 
so  closely  connected  with  their  own  as  the  Latin.  It  would  be 
easy  to  name  respected  Scottish  Latinists  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
but  not  till  the  nineteenth  did  the  country  produce  Greek  scholars 
so  eminent  as  Professor  Lewis  Campbell  or  the  late  Provost  of 
Oriel,  Mr  Monro.  Even  now  the  Greek  professors  in  our  universities 
are  usually  Englishmen,  or  Scots  who  have  been  distinguished  at  the 
English  universities.  Again,  the  Scottish  universities  hampered 
their  pupils  by  discouraging,  in  a  purely  tradesmanlike  spirit,  the 
teaching  of  Greek  at  the  burgh  schools.  Greek  they  regarded  as 
their  monopoly,  and  many  boys  arriving  at  college  had  to  begin 
by  learning  the  Greek  alphabet, — a  waste  of  the  time  of  the  regents, 
but  the  source  of  an  addition,  as  they  thought,  to  their  fees.  The 
schoolmasters  evaded  the  laws  prohibiting  them  from  teaching 
Greek ;  and  such  boys  as  did  learn  Greek  at  school  were  apt  to 
absent  themselves  from  the  Greek  class  at  college,  where  "  the 
Professors,  owing  to  the  low  state  of  proficiency  in  their  pupils, 
were  not  free  to  start  above  the  level  of  school  teaching,  and  had 
to  act  the  part  of  tutors  instead  of  that  of  Professors."  ^^ 

The  replies  of  the  St  Andrews  colleges  to  the  proposals  of  the 
Commissioners  of  1696  show  that  they  were  anxious  to  cleave, 
as  they  did  for  long,  to  the  old  system  of  "  regenting."  They 
would  not  leave  Greek  to  a  specialist  in  that  speech.  "The  Greek 
is  here  taught  by  the  Professors  of  Philosophy,  fnutuis  vidbus,  and 
we  think  it  needless  to  alter  that  constitution,  all  our  masters  being 
sufficiently  skilled  in  that  tongue."  Again,  there  was  "no  settled 
provision  for  our  present  Professors,"  who  appear  to  have  lived  on 
the  fees  paid  by  their  classes.  "  The  first  year  being  never  numer- 
ous, the  Masters'  greatest  encouragement  is  their  expectation  of 
better  classes  in  the  subsequent  years,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 


UNIVERSITY  CURRICULUM.  4OI 

supposed  that  any  of  the  present  Professors  will  fix  himself  to  the 
Greek  [the  work  of  the  first  year],  or  that  any  other  person  of 
merit  will  be  got  to  such  a  mean  post "  as  the  teaching  of  the 
language  of  Homer  and  Plato.  The  St  Leonard's  regents  averred 
that  any  one  of  them  could,  at  least,  teach  more  Greek  than  any 
boy  could  learn  in  one  year.  If  more  were  desired,  a  Greek  chair 
with  a  fit  occupant  should  be  founded.  Meanwhile  they  desired 
"that  all  teaching  of  Greek  in  Grammar -Schools  be  strictly  pro- 
hibited, because  there  are  a  number  of  silly  men  who,  having 
hardly  a  smatter  of  Greek  themselves,  do  take  upon  them  to  teach 
others,  to  the  great  disadvantage  of  many  good  spirits."  ^^  In  these 
circumstances  it  would  be  curious  if  Scotland  had  produced  eminent 
Hellenists  in  the  eighteenth  century.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find 
men  of  the  sword  and  of  affairs — like  Claverhouse,  Lovat,  and  the 
Master  of  Sinclair — quoting  Latin  authors,  even  authors  now  little 
read,  and  quoting  them  with  unaffected  pleasure.  In  the  remote 
isles  Dr  Johnson,  later,  met  ministers  who  were  excellent  Latin- 
ists,  and  the  minister  was  often  the  local  archaeologist.  When 
many  men  were  so  learned,  in  spite  of  difficulties  which  to  us  seem 
insuperable,  there  must  have  been  a  genuine  zest  for  erudition. 
Scotland  was  not  then,  as  Lockhart  wrote  that  she  was  about  1820, 
"in  a  state  of  facetious  and  rejoicing  ignorance." 

Greek  was,  or  ought  to  have  been,  the  study  of  the  first  year  at 
St  Andrews.  Of  Latin  nothing  is  said  in  the  Commissioners' 
Report  of  1696.  The  schools  were  expected  to  teach  it,  and 
the  extraordinary  thing  is  that,  despite  their  extreme  poverty  and 
lack  of  qualified  masters,  they  obviously  did  teach  Latin.  When, 
in  1706,  twenty  pounds  was  raised  for  the  salary  of  a  Latin  pro- 
fessor at  Glasgow,  he  was  enjoined  not  to  teach  grammar — grammar 
was  the  monopoly  of  the  schoolmasters,  their  gagne-pain}'^  Of 
course  no  man  could  teach  composition  and  translation  without 
teaching  grammar;  it  must  have  been  meant  that  he  was  not  to 
give  lessons  in  the  grammar  book.  "  In  the  second  year,"  say 
the  St  Salvator  regents,  "we  teach  the  Logicks  and  nothing  else, 
except  arithmetic  and  some  of  Euclid's  elements."  The  Logicks 
would  be  taught  in  the  Latin  of  that  science :  it  is  improbable  that 
Aristotle  was  tackled  in  Greek.  Even  under  the  distinguished 
Professor  Ferrier,  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
pre-Socratic  philosophers  were  lectured  on  without  the  Greek  texts : 
the  custom  may  have  survived  even  later.     In  the  third  year  the 

VOL.   IV.  2  c 


402  LECTURES. 

Metaphysics  were  taught,  also  "  the  Pneumatics,"  which  here  seems 
to  mean  psychology,  for  "  metaphysics  is  the  science  of  immaterial 
being,  and  nothing  can  be  more  expressly  under  it  than  spirits." 
On  other  occasions  "the  Pneumatics"  appear  to  have  included 
"the  uses  of  the  barometer."  Ethics  as  well  as  metaphysics  and 
pneumatics  were  taught  in  the  third  year.  "  In  the  fourth  year 
wee  teach  the  Physicks  general  and  special  .  .  .  and  Geography 
if  students  wait  and  stay  so  long."  Apparently  most  of  them 
evaded  the  first  year  and  the  fourth  year.  There  were  examples 
of  students  who  came  very  young  indeed,  but  the  average  age 
was  probably,  as  in  Ruddiman's  case,  from  sixteen  to  twenty : 
Ruddiman,  at  Laurencekirk,  succeeded  a  schoolmaster  who  died 
at  twenty. 

The  Session  was  from  the  end  of  October  to  July  20,  "unless 
our  Rent  fall  short."  The  Commissioners  had  objected  to  the 
taking  of  copious  notes  —  to  taking  down  the  whole  lecture. 
Students,  the  teachers  reported,  were  more  apt  to  arrive  at  the 
opening  of  term  and  stay  through  it,  "for  fear  of  blanking,  as 
they  call  it."     Not  many  years  ago  a  professor  observed  a  student 

not  taking  notes.      "Have  you  notes  of  the  lecture,    Mr  ?" 

he  asked.  "Yes,  sir."  "Whose  notes?"  "My  grandfather's, 
sir."  There  are  other  cheerful,  if  apocryphal,  modern  anecdotes 
of  students  who  possessed  old  notes  of  lectures  that  never  varied 
with  the  progress  of  the  years  and  of  science.  The  tendency  was, 
and  is,  not  in  Scottish  universities  only,  for  lectures  to  take  the 
place  of  reading-books.  There  was  an  excellent  practice  of  ex- 
amining the  members  of  each  class  at  the  beginning  of  each 
session, — "  it  obleidges  students  to  diligence  in  the  vaicancy," — 
and  there  was  also  an  examination  at  the  end  of  term,  a  kind 
of  "collections."  The  Commissioners  desired  a  matriculation  ex- 
amination in  Latin  and  Greek,  but  as  the  regents  did  their  best 
to  prevent  the  schools  from  teaching  Greek,  to  reject  newcomers 
ignorant  of  Greek  did  not  s'/it  their  interests.  Greek  was  nothing 
less  than  compulsory ;  many  came  to  college  in  the  second  year 
Greekless,  and  Greekless  they  remained.  At  St  Leonard's  they 
did  teach  Latin,  till  the  latest  comers  dropped  in,  and  at  St 
Leonard's  they  disapproved  of  taking  down  the  whole  lecture  in 
note -books.  Greek,  they  thought,  should  not  be  compulsory 
except  for  holders  of  bursaries. 

It  is  obvious  that  St  Andrews  was  very  poor,  the  regents,  and 


EDINBURGH    UNIVERSITY.  403 

later  the  professors,  depending  on  fees  from  their  pupils.  From 
the  Reformation,  when  Lethington  had  his  share  of  the  booty, 
onwards,  the  University,  never  rich,  was  often  plundered,  and 
**  the  common  good "  was  "  dilapidated "  by  the  professors. 
Andrew  Melville,  when  Principal  of  St  Mary's  College,  was  ac- 
cused of  inefficiency  in  financial  administration,  and  even  in  the 
nineteenth  century  Ur  Chalmers  was  obliged  to  expose  remarkable 
"dilapidations."  In  1747  St  Leonard's  and  St  Salvator's  united 
in  one  college,  by  reason  of  "  the  meanness  of  the  professors' 
salaries "  and  the  ruinous  condition  of  the  buildings.  If  there 
were  any  funds  for  "  the  upkeep "  of  the  edifices,  the  professors 
probably  used  them  for  the  repair  of  their  own  salaries.  After 
the  union  of  1747,  the  chairs  were  (for  "regenting"  was  now- 
abandoned)  those  of  Greek,  Logic,  Rhetoric,  and  Metaphysics, 
Ethics  and  Psychology,  Natural  and  Experimental  Philosophy, 
Latin  (at  last!),  History,  Mathematics,  and  Medicine.  At  present 
there  is  only  a  Readership  in  History,  of  recent  foundation.  Till 
1892  the  Logic  professor  also  lectured  in  English  Literature.  The 
History  chair  was  a  complete  failure,  and  in  1850  a  gentleman 
was  appointed  to  combine  Civil  with  Natural  History  !  He  was 
a  venerable  sportsman,  but  did  not  lecture  much.  There  were 
sixteen  bursars  and  four  servitors :  only  three  new  bursaries  were 
founded  in  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  On  transferring 
the  men  of  St  Leonard's,  which  was  in  fair  repair,  to  St  Salvator's, 
which  was  in  no  repair  at  all,  Montrose's  rooms  were  demolished  : 
such  was  academic  taste  and  wisdom.  In  1827  Professor  Hunter 
said  that  he  was  ashamed  when  visitors  wished  to  see  the  college, 
**  the  exterior  of  it  was  so  discreditable  " ;  "  like  an  old  cotton  mill," 
said  Dr  Chalmers.  St  Leonard's  and  its  site  were  alienated — in 
short,  no  Scottish  university  was  so  robbed,  starved,  and  neglected 
as  the  oldest  and  most  famous  of  the  four,  till  it  revived  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.^*^ 

It  was  probably  to  the  wisdom  of  Carstares,  when  Principal  of 
Edinburgh  College,  that  the  change  from  "regenting"  to  the 
foundation  of  professorial  chairs  was  due.  In  1707  a  crown 
patent  was  procured  for  a  Professor  of  Greek, — a  point  on  which 
the  Parliamentary  Commission  had  insisted.  The  Greek  teacher 
was  to  be  "fixed,  not  ambulatory,"  to  teach  Greek,  and  to  teach 
nothing  else.  The  Town  Council,  the  patrons,  at  first  opposed, 
but  in   1708  consented  to,  this  measure,  and  even  appointed  pro- 


404  PROFESSORS'  SALARIES. 

fessors  of  Latin,  Logic  and  Metaphysics,  Natural  Philosophy,  and 
Moral  Philosophy.  These  men  were,  and  their  successors  remained, 
teaching  professors,  not  decorative  additions  to  the  academic 
structure.  Glasgow  followed  the  lead  of  Edinburgh  in  1727, 
St  Andrews  did  so  on  the  union  of  its  colleges  (1747),  and 
Aberdeen  in  1754.  It  had  previously  been  the  interest  of  the 
regents  to  make  their  pupils  graduate :  in  the  new  state  of  things 
graduation  became  rare,  and  almost  extinct.  "The  small,  poverty- 
stricken,  ill-housed  University  of  Edinburgh  stood,  '  like  a  lodge 
in  a  garden  of  cucumbers,'  in  a  country  wellnigh  destitute  of 
secondary  schools."  21 

Even  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  after  the 
union  of  St  Leonard's  and  St  Salvator's  colleges,  the  salaries  of 
professors  were  very  exiguous.  The  salary  of  the  Principal  was 
fixed  at  ^160,  but  in  1826  we  find  that,  in  addition  to  other 
accrued  sums, — for  house  rent  and  "diet  money,"  and  jQt,  in 
"kain  hens"  from  the  farmers, — he  has  "additional  money,  gener- 
ally known  by  the  name  of  the  Candlemas  dividend,  jQ\o^.^'^^ 
The  celebrated  Dr  Chalmers,  elected  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy 
in  1823,  was  a  moralist  as  well  as  a  philosopher.  He  felt  a  con- 
scientious desire  to  know  what  was  the  source  of  the  Candlemas 
dividend,  which  looked  very  much  like  the  Candlemas  gifts  of  the 
schoolmasters,  paid  by  the  Principal  and  professors  to  themselves. 
His  statement  is  that  each  professor  received  a  regular  salary  of 
;£q6,  plus  jQ'i-S  for  house  rent  or  "diet  money  "  plus  the  consider- 
able Candlemas  dividend  in  February.  "  What  tvas  the  Candlemas 
fund  ? "  the  professor  kept  asking  his  brethren,  and  he  refused  to 
take  his  share  while  the  mystery  was  unsolved.  He  could  not  be 
certain  that  he,  or  any  of  them,  had  a  right  to  the  dividend.  In 
short,  the  money  was  the  surplus  of  the  revenues  of  the  college 
after  the  salaries  settled  in  1747  had  been  paid,  and  the  money 
ought,  apparently,  to  have  been  applied  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
buildings,  which  became  ruinous. 

Increasing  values  of  college  lands  had  permitted  small  augmen- 
tations of  salaries,  without  impairing  the  general  revenue,  at  various 
dates  after  1747.  But  in  1795,  and  ^^'^  1826,  the  professors  had 
acfjuircd  a  habit  of  helping  themselves  to  just  as  much  as  they 
thought  that  the  general  revenue  could  afford  for  the  year,  and 
that  amount  was  the  Candlemas  dividends,  only  enough  for  inci- 
dental corporate  expenses  being  left  in  the  college  chest.      "An 


POVERTY.  405 

instant  hand  is  now  laid  upon  each  annual  surplus,  which  it  is 
now  the  urgent  interest  of  the  Professors  to  make  as  large  as 
possible.  The  obvious  method  of  doing  this  is  by  saving  to  the 
uttermost,  on  buildings,  and  apparatus,  and  library,  and  all  the 
public  expenses  of  the  Society."  ^^  Thus  poverty  had  led  to 
conduct  not  precisely  scrupulous,  and  ruinous  to  all  the  inter- 
ests of  the  University,  while,  as  Professor  Chalmers  observed,  "it 
is  little,  after  all,  that  we  do  receive,  but  there  ought  to  be  a 
legal  and  undoubted  sanction  for  every  farthing  of  it."  The  pro- 
fessors were  helping  themselves  to  ;^i6oo  a-year  over  their  original 
salaries,  and  their  conduct  was  rebuked  by  the  opposite  behaviour 
of  the  professors  at  Glasgow.  Yet,  when  all  was  done,  the  pro- 
fessors were  paid,  even  when  they  helped  themselves,  on  a  most 
inadequate  scale. 

It  is  certainly  a  notable  fact  that,  in  a  people  so  intelligent  as 
the  Scots, — a  people  so  apt  for  education,  and  so  proud  of  its 
education, — the  eighteenth  century  saw  education  starved,  even 
after  the  tide  of  penury  had  turned,  when  society  set  its  face  to 
new  advances,  after  the  Rising  of  1745.  There  was  then  a  notably 
rapid  increase  in  wealth,  but  none  of  that  wealth  came  to  any 
university.  But  independence  of  spirit  remained.  "The  Town 
Council  offered  to  relieve  poor  students  of  their  graduation  fees  " — 
an  offer  which  was  resented.^*  Independence  does  not  mark  the 
many  persons  of  competent  property  who  now  accept  the  college 
fees  of  their  sons  from  the  well-meant  beneficence  of  an  opulent 
alien. 

The  life  educational  has  in  no  age  attracted  many  men  of  great 
natural  powers.  In  the  vision  of  Er,  in  Plato,  when  he  saw  the 
souls  choosing  new  careers,  none  of  them  selected  the  existence  of 
a  sophist.  When  the  salaries  of  professors  were  not  above  ^60, 
when  they  had  to  eke  out  a  livelihood  by  taking  boarders,  at 
wonderfully  low  rates,  into  their  households,  it  is  not  strange  that 
professors  were  seldom,  like  Hutcheson  of  Glasgow,  leaders  in 
scholarship,  in  history,  or  in  philosophy.  As  there  were  no 
pensions,  men  practically  superannuated,  and  perhaps  deaf,  re- 
mained firmly  in  their  chairs,  the  butts  of  generous  youth.  Here 
is  an  example  of  easy-going  erudition  from  the  University  of 
Glasgow  in  1704.  Mr  Trans  had  expired,  and  the  new  chair  of 
Greek  and  the  teachership  of  Hebrew  were  vacant.  A  Mr  Dunlop, 
son  of  the  late  Principal,  was  appointed  to  undergo  the  usual  trials 


406  GLASGOW   UNIVERSITY. 

as  to  his  skill  in  the  Greek  language,  and  no  more  was  required  of 
him  than  an  analysis  of  '  Iliad '  viii.  171-181  :  he  had  to  start  from 
the  middle  of  a  sentence !  He  must  have  begun  with  "  giving  the 
Trojans  a  sign,  the  turning  of  the  course  of  battle,"  and  must  have 
ended  his  analysis  at  a  comma,  before  the  conclusion  of  a  sentence, 
as  he  commenced  in  the  middle  of  another.  We  wonder  whether, 
in  line  177,  Mr  Dunlop  read  ot,  or,  with  Bentley,  01,  "which," 
says  a  recent  editor,  "  is  pleasing  in  itself"  The  choice  of  a 
passage  without  its  beginning  or  its  conclusion  donne  furieusement 
a  penser  as  to  the  scholarship  of  examiners.  Obviously  they  knew 
nothing  about  Greek.^^  As  to  teaching  Hebrew,  "  as  there  is  none 
in  the  college  who  can  allow  so  much  time  for  teaching  the  Hebrew 
as  that  language  would  require  except  Dr  Sinclare,  Professor  of 
Mathematics,  therefore  they  recommend  him  to  teach  the  same 
to  the  students,"  for  300  merks  annually.  The  suggestion  is  that 
they  could  all  teach  Hebrew  equally  well,  but  the  time  of  all  of 
them,  except  the  mathematical  professor,  was  too  much  in  demand.^* 
Except  for  the  Gregorys,  connections  of  Rob  Roy,  and  for  Colin 
Maclaurin,  men  distinguished  in  mathematics  and  astronomy,  the 
lists  of  Scottish  universities  contain  no  names  of  European  reputa- 
tion in  the  first  half  of  the  century. 

As  for  the  students,  by  no  means  all  of  them  were  of  the  social 
class  of  Boston,  Ruddiman,  and  many  others  who,  when  not  sup- 
ported by  bursaries,  lived  very  hardly,  and  with  heroic  stoicism,  on 
oatmeal  brought  from  their  country  homes.  How  many  of  these 
brave  lads  of  promise  have  perished  untimely,  practically  killed  by 
privation  and  overwork !  With  a  kind  of  shame  we  reflect  on  the 
want  of  liberality  towards  an  education  so  eagerly  desired,  and  so 
heroically  attained.  As  late  as  1827,  at  St  Andrews,  students  ranked 
as  "  Primars,  sons  of  noblemen  ;  Secondars,  what  they  call  gentle- 
men commoners  in  England  ;  and  Ternars,  those  of  the  common 
ranks  of  life,"  so  Dr  Ferrie  explained,  with  the  Bursars  who  were 
on  the  Foundation. 2^  The  Primar  in  1827  was  extinct, — "the  last 
Primar  that  was  here  was  Lord  Kennedy."  The  medals  hung  on 
the  ancient  silver  arrow,  gifts  from  the  winners  in  the  competition 
for  bowmanship,  prove  that  Primars,  like  Montrose  and  Argyll,  were 
often  successful ;  and  all  the  winners  are  armigerous,  so  probably 
they  were  Secondars,  as  a  rule.  As  late  as  1827  the  three  ranks 
paid  graduated  fees,  the  Primar,  of  course,  paying  most,  whereof  Dr 
Chalmers  did  not  approve.^**     The  students  in  1827  rather  objected 


LIFE   OF   UNDERGRADUATES.  407 

to  the  distinction  of  social  ranks  as  marked  by  differences  of  the 
shape  of  gowns :  all  gowns  in  the  Arts  Faculty  were  scarlet.'^ 
(There  is  no  longer,  of  course,  any  distinction,  except  in  the 
tassels  of  the  caps,  which  indicate  seniority.)  The  Secondars 
were  about  a  third,  or  between  a  third  and  a  fourth,  of  the  whole 
number  of  students  as  late  as  1827.  Men  who  could  afford  to 
pay  a  Secondar's  fee  often  preferred  to  enter  themselves  as  Ternars. 
It  is  curious  to  find  that  the  old  social  distinctions,  which  were 
ordered  to  cease  in  1698,  lasted  so  late.  In  1684  the  grades  paid 
at  different  rates  for  their  food,  and,  in  the  case  of  Primars  and 
Secondars,  for  the  food  of  their  servants,  and  in  fees  to  the  servants 
and  regents.^" 

The  practice  of  living  in  college  rooms  lasted  longer  at  St 
Andrews  than  in  the  large  towns,  and  ceased  mainly  because 
the  rooms  were  suffered,  in  the  interests  of  the  professors' 
Candlemas  dividends,  to  become  uninhabitable.  The  writer  once 
met  a  very  aged  St  Andrews  man  who  remembered  the  last 
undergraduate  resident  in  college.  He  cooked  for  himself,  and 
pared  the  skin  from  his  potatoes  with  his  razor.  Nine  o'clock 
was  the  hour  for  shutting  the  college  gates,  and,  as  discipline  was 
severe,  probably  men  were  not  allowed  to  "knock  in"  after  nine. 
Probably  the  men  at  St  Andrews  who  stopped  the  mail  in  17 15 
were  out  too  late  :  a  Threipland  of  Fingask  has  scratched  his  name 
and  the  date,  1715,  on  the  Founder's  tomb  in  chapel,  and  he 
and  his  companions  were  possibly  the  Jacobites  who  committed 
this  outrage. 

No  amount  of  discipline  represses  the  spirits  of  youth.  In 
1702  the  Glasgow  wits  began  a  practice  of  handing  in  the  names 
of  fellow-students,  at  church,  as  in  special  need  of  the  prayers 
of  the  congregation.  For  this  deed  Patrick  Brown,  an  old  offender, 
was  solemnly  expelled.^^  On  the  same  day  Samuel  Ashmore  was 
charged  with  assailing  at  midnight,  with  his  sword,  the  sergeant  of 
the  Guard,  and  cutting  his  ramrod  in  two  :  Samuel  was  encouraged 
by  a  friend  of  the  gentler  sex.  The  college  let  Ashmore  and 
two  other  men  off  with  a  reprimand,  at  the  request  of  the  Provost : 
they  had  all  been  skirmishing  with  their  swords.  Students  were 
not  allowed  to  wear  swords  in  the  streets,  but  they  did  so,  as 
became  their  blood.  When  praying  publicly  in  the  classes,  they 
vented  various  humours,  and  the  practice  was  abolished,  as  not 
tending  to  edification.^-     Fines  were  occasionally  inflicted,  as  when. 


408  ELECTION   OF   PROFESSORS. 

Robert  Fulton  cut  a  friend's  gown  with  his  knife  on  the  Lord's 
Day.  (Five  shillings.)  In  1704  there  was  a  great  Town  and 
Gown  row :  the  professors  did  not  deny  "  the  huge  extravagances 
and  disorders  of  their  scholars,"  but  averred  that  "there  were 
faults  on  both  hands."  The  men  had  seized  the  keys  of  the 
prison  and  assaulted  a  house ;  the  town's  folk  had  entered  the 
college  in  arms,  had  drawn  their  swords,  and  fired  on  the  students 
in  the  inner  court. ^^  Mr  Steadman,  M.A.,  in  17 12,  declared  that,  if 
he  did  not  get  more  drink,  he  would  burn  down  the  college ;  and 
the  St  Andrews  men,  not  long  before,  had  matured  a  scheme  for 
burning  the  town.  Mr  Steadman  was  a  student  of  divinity :  he 
lost  his  degree,  and  was  expelled.^  Later  he  was  readmitted. 
Men  too  uproarious  were  imprisoned  in  the  steeple,  whence,  in 
1 7 14,  the  friends  of  Joseph  Satcher  rescued  him  with  violence, 
breaking  in  the  door.  For  this  offence  Thomas  Yates  was  fined 
eighteen  pounds  (Scots).  In  1722  the  men  lit  a  bonfire  against 
the  college  gate,  in  honour  of  a  Parliamentary  election,  and 
insulted  a  professor,  who  probably  was  of  another  political  party. 
A  kind  of  proctor  was  appointed  in  1725,  to  detect  students  who 
frequented  public  billiard-rooms  at  undue  hours.  There  was  even 
an  attempt  at  a  duel,  but  one  of  the  combatants  did  not  appear 
on  the  ground,  where  his  opponent,  with  his  second,  was  waiting. 
In  short,  young  men  were  young  men  at  Glasgow  University. 
But  the  records  are  not  rich  in  notices  of  the  freaks  of  the  young 
barbarians. 

To  an  example  set  in  Glasgow  by  Professor  Francis  Hutcheson, 
the  University  owed  a  beneficent  change.  Hutcheson  lectured 
in  English,  not  in  Latin,  as  the  heretical  Mr  Simson  and  all  other 
professors  lectured.  By  an  English  survival  of  this  practice,  down 
to  the  days  of  Keble  the  Professor  of  Poetry  lectured  in  Latin. 
The  consequence  is  that  his  literary  criticism  is  lost  to  mankind, 
for  nobody  has  translated  his  lectures.  Another  survival  of  a 
Scottish  custom,  not  always  observed,  in  the  election  of  professors, 
endures  at  Cambridge  to  the  present  day.  It  was  the  occasional 
method  to  make  professorial  candidates  compete  for  the  chair 
in  theses  on  some  philosophical  question.  In  1906  Cambridge 
saw  three  or  four  of  her  most  learned  men  compete  for  the  Greek 
chair,  in  analyses  and  comments  on  chosen  portions  of  the  Greek 
classics, — passages  more  lengthy,  of  course,  than  the  ten  Homeric 
lines  which  sufficed  at  Glasgow.     The  Latin  of  the  Public  Orator, 


ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY.  409 

at  Commemoration,  is  also  a  survival,  long  disused  at  Scottish 
universities. 

Aberdeen,  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  was  as  poor 
as  St  Andrews  was  chronically.  Bishop  Dunbar's  buildings  for 
students'  rooms  were  almost  ruinous,  and  vain  efforts  were  made 
to  rebuild  them ;  while  the  Latin  teacher  "  had  to  rebuild  his 
manse  at  his  own  expense,  and  wait  till  the  finances  would  admit 
of  the  refunding  of  the  money."  ^  The  men,  even  those  on  the 
foundation,  rebelled  against  the  wearing  of  the  gown,  which  has 
always  been  more  fashionable  at  St  Andrews  than  elsewhere. 
They  also  avoided  chapel,  and  usually  came  up  several  weeks 
after  term  had  begun.  No  professor  of  mathematics  taught 
Hebrew  at  Aberdeen,  because  there  was  no  professor  of  mathe- 
matics. A  Dr  Bower  was  appointed  (200  merks  of  salary)  about 
1 704-1 707,  but  "the  mathematical  class  turned  to  little  account." 
Dr  Bower  abandoned  the  unfruitful  task,  and  fled,  probably  in 
search  of  a  livelihood,  to  London.  There  was  no  new  appoint- 
ment till  1732.  The  students,  like  those  of  Glasgow,  were  rather 
unruly,  and  in  1705  broke  open  the  gate  of  the  Tolbooth,  made 
a  hole  in  the  roof  of  a  room,  and  rescued  a  prisoner.  They 
were  fined  fifty  merks,  not  expelled  like  the  humorous  Patrick 
Brown  of  Glasgow.  The  students  had  a  manuscript  periodical, 
addicted  to  overmuch  blaming  of  "the  dons."  Verses  were 
circulated  on  the  defects  of  the  professors,  especially  of  poor 
Dr  Bower — 

"  Wondrous  things  don  by  me. 

Who  weel  can  count  both  2  and  3, 

Likewise  I  can  count  3  and  4  ; 

All  this  is  done  by  Thomas  Bower." 

Some  testy  professor  "took  the  poems  very  ill,  and  made  ane 
overture  to  the  Principall  that  the  Rimer's  ears  should  be  croped," 
— an  unacademic  punishment.^^  Pitying  learned  poverty,  good 
Queen  Anne,  in  17 13,  gave  no  less  a  sum  than  a  hundred  guineas 
annually  to  each  of  the  Aberdeen  colleges.  In  the  'Fifteen  the 
Jacobite  students  played  their  pranks,  and  eight  were  expelled 
for  burning  the  Elector  in  effigy  and  publicly  drinking  the  health 
of  King  James.  Several  regents  were  also  deposed  for  their 
loyalty  to  the  White  Rose.  A  munificent  benefactor  arose,  Dr 
James  Fraser,  who  had  been  tutor  to  the  Duke  of  St  Albans, 
and  was  Secretary  of  Chelsea  Hospital.      Dying  in   1731,  he  left 


4IO  ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY. 

money  for  bursaries,  for  the  salary  of  a  librarian,  and  for  mathe- 
matical instruments.  He  also  contributed,  solus  fere^  to  the 
building  fund."  The  students  of  our  universities  did  not  often 
show  their  gratitude  in  Dr  Eraser's  way,  and  the  patron  of 
Marischal's  College,  one  of  the  most  open-handed  of  men,  was 
through  all  this  period  a  needy  Jacobite  exile.  In  medicine  the 
family  of  Gregory  made  Aberdeen  illustrious.  From  1725  to 
1755  three  of  the  family  were  successively  appointed  professors 
of  medicine.     This  was  not  an  example  of  unfair  nepotism. 

The  good  Earl  Marischal's  foundation  was  rather  more  fortunate 
than  that  of  Bishop  Elphinstone  in  obtaining  funds  for  building. 
Parliament  (1695)  and  charitable  "gentlemen  in  the  country"  made 
a  grant  and  gave  subscriptions,  and  the  Convention  of  Royal  Burghs 
followed  their  example  to  the  extent  of  about  ;^ioo.  The  Senatus 
also  appealed  to  the  commercial  Scots  resident  in  Poland  (a  country 
where  they  were  still  numerous),  and  in  Konigsberg  and  Dantzig. 
Primars,  on  leaving  college,  gave  windows  to  the  Hall,  and  the 
Earl  Marischal  of  1700  founded  a  Chair  of  Medicine.  Most  of 
the  Marischal  College  masters,  being  Jacobites,  were  removed  after 
the  'Fifteen  :  the  college  was  closed,  and  opened  with  a  new  staff 
in  1 717,  the  Crown  succeeding  to  the  patronage  of  the  exiled 
Earl.  Among  the  old  regents  was  Meston,  dimly  remembered 
as  a  Jacobite  poet :  his  verses  have  not  the  merit  of  the  popular 
songs  of  the  White  Rose.  Some  of  these,  even  in  the  first  period 
of  the  Cause,  have  spirit  and  passion,  though  the  best,  in  Scots, 
were  sung  when  hope  was  dead.  Meston,  a  convivial  humourist, 
had  been  tutor  to  the  Jacobite  Earl  and  to  his  famous  brother, 
the  Prussian  field-marshal. 

A  Chair  of  Experimental  Philosophy  was  founded  in  1726,  and 
a  Chair  of  Oriental  Languages  in  1727,  by  the  Rev.  Mr  Ramsay, 
a  clergyman  in  Barbadoes.  In  1738  the  Senatus,  unlike  that  of 
St  Andrews,  "  renounced  a  part  of  their  prwate  interest  yearly  in 
the  College  Funds  for "  the  building  of  a  south  wing  to  the 
college :  the  town,  old  students,  and  the  county  also  subscribed  : 
the  architect  was  William  Adam.  Aberdeen,  town  and  county,  was 
manifestly  more  wealthy  and  much  more  liberal  towards  education 
than  the  kingdom  of  Fife. 

The  library  of  King's  College,  begun  by  Bishop  Stewart  in 
1 532-1 545,  has  left  few  relics  in  the  way  of  ecclesiastical  MSS. 
These   were  destroyed   by  the  Earl  of  Moray  and  other  earnest 


THE   LIBRARIES.  4II 

men  when  the  Reformation  began,  just  as  such  books  were 
scattered  and  blown  about  the  Oxford  quadrangles.  Later  the 
library  depended  on  gifts  of  books  and  on  fees  for  graduation. 
In  1709  the  Scottish  universities  "received  the  Stationers'  Hall 
privilege."  It  appears  that  at  St  Andrews  the  eighteenth  century 
was  a  period  of  neglect  of  the  library ;  very  many  books  which,  by 
virtue  of  its  privilege,  it  must  have  possessed  are  no  longer  on  its 
shelves,  and  these  are  books  of  general  interest.  Probably  pro- 
fessors took  out  books  all  their  lives,  and  did  not  take  the  trouble 
to  return  them  regularly.  On  the  death  of  the  learned  man,  his 
library  would  be  sold,  the  widow,  in  her  turn,  not  being  careful  to 
distinguish  his  possessions  from  those  of  the  university.  This,  at 
least,  is  a  working  hypothesis.  In  1727  Dr  Hunter  attested  the 
good  care  which  the  students  took  of  the  books.^^  Professors 
"  retained  books  for  a  considerable  number  of  years,"  and  it  was 
"  taken  for  granted  "  that  the  books  were  safe  in  their  possession. 
Dr  Hunter  desired  that  an  annual  return  of  all  books  should  be 
made.  Nobody  knew  about  the  books  in  the  hands  of  professors 
till  these  learned  men  "died  or  left  the  college."  Probably  nobody 
knew  much  more  after  the  former  melancholy  event.  The  librarian 
vetoed  some  books  to  students  much  at  his  own  discretion  :  he 
names  among  them  '  The  Memoirs  of  Harriet  Wilson.'  There  was 
no  reading-room,  and  even  professors,  though  they  could  enter  the 
library  in  the  absence  of  the  hbrarian,  could  not  get  at  the  books. 
Students  are  strange  people.  All  through  the  librarianship  of  a 
Mr  Vilant  they  "greatly  abused  the  books,"  writing  over  them,  in 
large,  the  name  of  the  worthy  librarian.  This,  however,  was  the 
freak  of  a  later  age,  when  books  were  much  more  numerous  than 
in  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

It  is  clear  that  the  chief  tendencies  of  the  Scottish  universities — 
the  studies  in  which  they  mainly  shone — were  medicine  and  natural 
philosophy,  before  the  Refwuveau  after  1745,  the  times  of  Hume, 
Robertson,  Adam  Smith,  and  the  school  of  Reid  in  philosophy. 
For  the  higher  studies  in  law  men  went  to  the  Dutch  universities. 
The  age,  in  the  English  universities,  was  also  rather  somnolent, 
though  the  great  name  of  Bentley  redeems  the  period,  and,  with 
more  wealth  and  more  scholars,  Oxford  and  Cambridge  were 
naturally  much  in  advance  of  St  Andrews  and  Glasgow. 

"  In  the  early  part  of  the  century,  Edinburgh,  which  implies  all 
Scotland,  was  wellnigh  destitute  of  literature."^'*     The   turmoil   of 


412  REVIVAL  OF   LITERATURE. 

the  Covenant  and  the  Restoration,  the  Revolution  and  the  Risings, 
with  the  ecclesiastical  brawls,  had  killed  belles  lettres,  while  the 
general  poverty  made  authorship  profitless.  There  was  love  of 
literature,  but  it  supported  existence  mainly  on  the  Latin  classics : 
with  these  no  man  can  starve.  Very  early  in  the  century,  however. 
Literary  Societies  were  founded,  the  members  endeavouring  to  write 
English  in  the  Southern  manner.  Ramsay  of  Ochtertyre  says  that 
"soon  after  the  extinction  of  the  rebellion  of  17 15  a  number  of 
promising  young  men  began  to  distinguish  themselves  in  science 
or  polite  literature."  Their  societies  held  literary  debates,  essays 
were  read  and  criticised.  "  Latin  was  by  this  time  out  of  fashion, 
except  at  colleges," — a  remark  much  too  sweeping,  as  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  period  proves.  *'  For  more  than  a  century 
nothing  of  character  had  appeared  in  the  dialect  usually  called 
'broad  Scots.'"  However,  Allan  Ramsay,  in  his  'Tea -Table 
Miscellany'  (1724),  revived  the  good  old  airs  and  reprinted  some 
of  the  good  old  songs,  while,  in  other  cases,  new  words  were 
substituted.  We  have  already  heard  Wodrow  lamenting  the 
growth  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  in  Allan's  little  circulating  library, 
where  novels  were  to  be  found  and  plays.  In  the  shop  of  this 
wonderful  wigmaker  arose  the  dawn  of  the  literature  of  modern 
Scotland. 

Allan's  'Tea-Table  Miscellany'  threw  light  bridges  across  the 
ages,  from  the  time  of  the  old  popular  ballads  to  the  eighteenth 
century  and  the  nineteenth,  from  "  Chevy  Chace  "  to  Scott.  The 
institution  of  afternoon  tea,  the  "  four  hours,"  is  taken  for  granted, 
and  the  kettle  sings  on  the  hearth  of  the  Vesta  of  a  new  age. 

Tea  meant  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  old  roystering  life 
of  punch  and  claret  and  drams  at  every  hour  of  the  day,  but  that 
age  certainly  died  as  hard  as  it  drank.  Nearly  twenty  years  after 
tea  and  song  and  chat  were  an  institution  in  Edinburgh,  Duncan 
Forbes  informed  the  Marquis  of  Tweeddale  that  "  tea  is  the 
principal  cause  of  the  [financial]  misfortunes  we  feel."  The 
beverage  had  become  so  common  that  Clementina  Sobieski,  in 
her  flight  to  Italy,  managed  to  get  tea  at  a  miserable  little  sub- 
Alpine  inn  :  the  tea,  however,  was  not  exquisite.  Queen  Anne, 
we  know,  though  the  Jacobite  song  calls  her  "Brandy  Nan," 

"  Did  sometimes  counsel  take,  and  sometimes  tea," 
setting  the  fashion  which  Scots  ladies  hastened  to  follow.     Forbes 


TEA   AND   POETRY.  413 

was  anxious  to  clap  a  tax  of  four  shillings  on  every  pound  of  tea, 
when  "  the  abuse  complained  of  would  cease,  of  course,  for  it  is  the 
meanness  of  the  price  that  encourages  the  poorer  sort  to  purchase, 
and  the  duty,  added  even  to  the  low  value  at  which  it  is  now  sold, 
would  prove  an  effectual  bar  to  the  use  of  it  among  such  as  have 
deserted  twopenny  for  it " — that  is,  twopenny  ale.  But  the  extent 
of  the  coast,  the  few  Custom  House  officers,  and  their  corruption, 
made  it  impossible  to  prevent  the  smuggling  of  such  a  light  cargo 
as  the  herb.  Forbes  dreamed  of  placing  a  poll  tax  on  such 
families  as  used  tea.  But  England  would  resist  that,  England  not 
being  so  much  hurt  as  Scotland  by  what  the  convivial  Duncan  calls 
"  this  abominable  practice."  Even  servants  "  make  tea  their  after- 
noon and  morning  diet,"  which  causes  "  the  loss  of  our  bullion,  and 
the  present  poverty  of  our  country."  "  A  most  mischievous  drug  " 
was  tea;  but  Forbes  has  to  confess  that  foreign  brandy  is  not 
much  less  injurious  to  the  revenue  of  the  land  and  the  constitution 
of  the  consumer.  His  plan  for  dealing  a  death-blow  at  tea 
was  complicated,  and  in  a  high  degree  distasteful  to  friends  of 
liberty.'**^ 

The  economics  of  tea  have  led  us  away  from  the  rising  of 
literature  out  of  tea,  like  Venus  from  the  ocean.  Allan's  'Tea- 
Table  Miscellany '  was  wonderfully  popular,  as  he  says  in  his 
preface  to  the  Fourteenth  Edition.  The  verses  were  meant  to  be 
sung,  mainly  to  old  Scottish  airs,  and,  on  the  wings  of  music, 
crossed  the  Atlantic, 

"  Here  thy  soft  verse,  made  to  a  Scottish  air. 
Is  often  sung  by  our  Virginian  fair  ; 
Hydaspes  and  Rinaldo  both  give  way 
To  Mary  Scott,  Tweedside,  and  Mary  Gray." 

Ramsay  encouraged  "  ingenious  young  gentlemen,"  who  supplied 
thirty  of  his  lyrics  anonymously.  "  The  rest  are  such  verses  as 
have  been  done  time  out  of  mind,  and  only  want  to  be  cleaned  from 
the  dross  of  blundering  transcribers  and  printers."  Unluckily  Allan 
improved  as  well  as  cleaned,  and  conventional  verses,  in  the 
eighteenth-century  manner,  deform  the  best  old  ballads.  "  Where 
Helen  Ires,"  the  fine  lyric  of  Kirkconnel  Lee,  is  changed  into  "  Ah, 
why  these  tears  in  Nelly's  eyes,"  and  so  forth.  "This  is  no  my 
ain  House"  is  altered  from  its  Jacobitism,  if  the  Jacobite  be  the 
original  form  ;  but  given  an  air,  fresh  words  were  put  to  it  in  every 


414  THE  OLD   SONGS. 

generation,  as  in  the  case  of  "  Auld  Lang  Syne."     In  "  William  and 
Margaret "  we  read  verses  so  out  of  keeping  as — 

"  But  love  had,  like  the  canker-worm, 
Consum'd  her  early  prime  ; 
The  rose  grew  pale,  and  left  her  cheek, 
She  died  before  her  time." 

The  facetious  Scots  songs  are  sometimes  left  in  the  original,  as  in — 

"  My  kimmer  and  I  lay  down  to  sleep, 
And  twa  pint  stoups  at  our  bed's  feet, 
And  still  as  we  wakened  we  drank  they  dry, — 
WTiat  think  ye  o'  my  wee  kimmer  and  I." 

We  think  the  conduct  of  the  pair  on  a  level  with  their  grammar, 
but  Forbes  of  CuUoden  must  have  welcomed  them  as  friends  of 
the  revenue.  The  great  point  was  the  return  to  fashion  of  Scottish 
vernacular  poetry  :  without  Ramsay's  '  Miscellany '  Burns  might  not 
have  been  listened  to  when  he  wrote  in  Scots,  for  the  tendency  of 
literature,  as  Ramsay  shows,  was  to  the  fine  English,  and  painful 
anxiety  to  avoid  Scotticisms.  It  is  pleasant  to  meet,  in  this 
galimatias,  an  unspoiled  ballad,  such  as — 

"Ye  Highlands  and  ye  Lawlands, 
Oh  !  where  hae  ye  been, 
They  have  slain  the  Earl  o'  Murray, 
And  they  laid  him  on  the  green  !  " 

Here,  too,  we  find  " Hardyknute,"  that  spirited  and  spurious  "frag- 
ment of  an  old  ballad,"  the  first  thing  that  Scott  spelled  out  in 
infancy  ;  the  last  thing,  he  said,  that  he  would  forget.  Here,  also, 
is  Hamilton  of  Bangour's  "  Braes  of  Yarrow."  Of  young  Hamilton 
it  is  told  that  he  went  to  Italy  in  search  of  health,  and  was  standing 
on  one  of  the  Seven  Hills  admiring  the  prospect.  A  hand  was  laid 
on  his  shoulder,  and  a  voice  said,  "  Do  you  like  this,  Mr  Hamilton, 
as  much  as  the  view  from  North  Berwick  Law  ?  "  The  speaker  was 
Prince  Charles,  a  fairy  Prince,  young,  gay,  and  beautiful,  who  at 
once  made  a  recruit  of  the  poet.  Ramsay  had  the  audacity  to 
include  "The  Blackbird"  in  his  collection: — 

"  Upon  a  fair  morning,  for  soft  recreation, 
I  heard  a  fair  lady  was  making  her  moan, 
With  sighing  and  sobbing  and  sad  lamentation, 
Saying,  '  My  Blackbird  most  Royal  is  flown.'" 

The  blackbird  was  the  exiled  king. 


NO  ART.  415 

With  Ramsay,  then,  begins  the  Scottish  renouveau,  the  spirit  of 
renewed  joy  in  the  country  and  in  the  fabled  streams,  Tweed, 
Yarrow,  Ettrick,  names  soon  to  be  made  familiar  to  the  world  ;  in 
the  old  superstitious  beliefs,  the  ancient  ballads  of  the  people — in 
fine,  the  material  of  Burns  and  of  Scott.  The  veteran  brigadier. 
Mackintosh  of  Borlam,  in  his  '  Essay  on  Ways  and  Means  of 
Enclosing,'  lamented  that,  "in  place  of  his  morning  dram,  with 
strong  ale  at  breakfast,  he  found  the  tea-table  and  china  and  silver 
equipage  brought  in,  and  marmalade,  and  cream  " — with  a  number 
of  more  substantial  dainties,  he  might  have  added.  But  the  change 
was  not  for  the  worse ;  moreover,  cakes  and  ale  held  their  sway  in 
a  very  convivial  society.  Allan  Ramsay  failed  in  the  gallant  attempt 
to  open  a  theatre  (1736), — the  ministers  and  the  magistrates  were 
too  strong  for  him ;  but  within  twenty  years  the  Rev.  John  Home 
produced  that  tragedy  of  "  Douglas,"  in  presence  of  which  Shake- 
speare, like  Racine  confronted  by  Victor  Hugo,  was  reckoned 
enfond.      "  Whaur's  Wully  Shakespeare  noo  ?  " 

In  the  matter  of  painting  Scotland  had  ever  relied  on  aliens. 
Jamieson,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  was  the  only  native  portrait- 
painter  of  note  till  Allan  Ramsay,  greatly  favoured  of  the  Muses, 
had  a  son  who  studied  in  Rome,  and  became  Court  painter  to 
George  HI.,  where  Gavin  Hamilton,  a  collector  of  antiques,  was 
also  studying.  The  walls  of  houses  in  town  and  country  contain 
the  staring  portraits,  and  family  groups  destitute  of  perspective, 
which  were  cheaply  limned  by  strolling  Dick  Tintos  of  the  period, 
while  the  houses  of  the  great  nobles  were  rich  in  Italian  master- 
pieces, bought  during  foreign  tours,  or  acquired  in  the  brief  years 
when  Charles  I.  was  the  leading  amateur  of  his  kingdom.  It 
appears  that,  even  before  the  Union  of  the  Crowns,  the  unfortunate 
Earl  Gowrie  of  the  mysterious  plot  had  a  considerable  collection  of 
pictures,  necessarily  foreign,  which  probably  fell  into  the  hands  of 
James  VI. ;  and,  even  earlier,  a  French  painter,  Jehan  de  Court 
(later  painter  to  Henri  III.),  was  in  Queen  Mary's  suite.  Two  or 
three  portraits  by  such  French  artists  survive  from  the  sixteenth 
century,  but  there  was  not  a  native  painter  during  the  period  when 
the  Duke  of  York  (James  II.)  was  governing  Scotland.  Nothing 
but  poverty  caused  this  entire  absence  of  the  art :  there  were  no 
patrons. 

The  improvement,  the  progress  towards  increase  of  money  in 
Scotland,  can  hardly  have  been  perceptible  in  the  first  half  of  the 


4l6  FINANCE. 

eighteenth  century.  As  late  as  1742  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  in  a 
letter  to  Tweeddale,  already  cited,  says,  "  There  is  remarkably  less 
coin  to  be  met  with  than  ever  was  at  any  time  within  memory 
known,  even  in  this  poor  country,  occasioned  chiefly  by  the 
gradual  but  continual  exportation  of  our  bullion  for  tea,  coffee,  and 
foreign  spirits,"  and  by  remittances  of  gold  for  grain  in  a  recent 
dearth.  "  Paper  is  the  only  coin  that  one  sees,  and  even  it  is  far 
from  being  in  any  tolerable  quantity."*^ 

Yet  human  memory  went  easily  back  to  the  Union,  when  we 
know  the  amount  of  coin  in  the  country.  In  1707,  when  specie 
was  recalled  to  the  Bank  of  Scotland  for  re-minting,  the  following 
list  was  made  : — 


Foreign  silver  money    . 
Scottish  coins  later  than  1673 
Older  hammer-struck  coins 
English  coin 


In  all 


Value. 
^132,080 

96,856 
142,180 

40,000 

^411,116 


Chambers  calculated  that  of  gold  coin,  in  1707,  there  probably 
was  not  more  than  ;,^3o,ooo.  In  1738  Ruddiman  says,  "The 
scarcity  of  copper  money  does  now  occasion  frequent  complaints." 
Allowing  for  coin  not  sent  in  in  1707,  the  coined  wealth  of  Scotland, 
at  the  Union,  was  under  ;z^6oo,ooo.  Yet  the  amount  was  even 
lower  in  1742  ;  so  the  advance  due  to  the  Union  was  not,  by  this 
test,  conspicuous.  The  Bank  of  Scotland,  in  the  alarm  of  1 708,  had 
very  considerable  metallic  stores,  and  "  kept  up  an  uninterrupted  cir- 
culation of  money."  Yet  even  paper  was  very  scarce  in  1742.  It 
is  not  surprising  that,  in  1 745,  the  Union  was  no  better  loved,  except 
as  a  Protestant  safeguard,  than  when  it  was  first  consummated.*- 

There  were,  however,  signs  of  better  times  approaching,  or,  at 
least,  of  times  less  impecunious,  Scotland  had  long  been  a  linen- 
making  country :  the  ladies  and  their  maids  spun  for  domestic 
wants,  "the  poor  spun  for  the  market,"  in  the  villages  there 
were  weavers  like  Tod  Lowrie  in  the  romance.*^  Forbes,  in  his 
melancholy  description  of  the  economical  condition  of  a  tea-drinking 
Scotland,  reports  that  "  our  linen  manufactory  is  in  a  very  thriving 
way.  There  is  a  commendable  spirit  of  launching  out  into  new 
branches  of  the  linen  manufactory,  such  as  thread,  stockings,  tapes, 
figured  work  for  table-linen.  ...  I  must  not  conceal  that  it  is 
the  only  thing  that  promises  any  good  to  this  poor  country.     The 


CHRISTIAN    SHAW's   CASE  (1697).  417 

fishery  has  totally  failed  for  some  years,"  apparently  for  lack  of 
enterprise  or  energy,  or  both,  for  the  Dutch  fishers,  as  in  the  days 
of  Elizabeth  and  James  VI.,  were  catching  abundance  of  fish  off  our 
coasts.  The  war  with  Spain  pinched  the  foreign  trade  of  Glasgow ; 
in  fact,  linen-making  was  the  country's  only  successful  industry. 

The  thread-making  industry  of  Renfrewshire  was  also  beginning : 
in  its  history  we  see  the  step  from  the  old  Scotland  to  the  new. 
The  subject  has  already  been  alluded  to,  but  is  curious  enough  to 
deserve  further  notice  in  a  chapter  on  social  life.  The  Shaws  of 
Bargarran,  in  the  parish  of  Erskine,  on  the  south  side  of  the  Clyde, 
were  of  old  family  :  we  have  met  Sir  John  Shaw  of  Greenock  at 
Sheriffmuir,  and  in  the  strange  affair  of  the  slaying  of  two  brothers 
by  the  Master  of  Sinclair.  In  February  1697  the  Privy  Council 
held  an  inquiry  on  the  case  of  Christian  Shaw,  a  girl  of  eleven, 
daughter  of  the  laird  of  Bargarran.  In  August  1696  Christian  had 
informed  her  mother  of  some  small  pilfering  by  one  of  the  maids. 
The  woman  thrice  solemnly  cursed  the  child  in  the  name  of  God, 
and  uttered  the  wish,  so  terrific  to  a  tender  imagination,  that  her 
soul  might  be  "harled  [dragged]  through  hell."  It  may  be 
observed  even  now,  and  in  savage  as  well  as  in  civilised  countries, 
that  a  great  nervous  and  mental  shock  is  occasionally  followed  by 
very  singular  phenomena  connected  with  the  sufferer.  Thus  cases 
of  the  poltergeist,  of  unexplained  noises  and  movements  of  objects, 
follow  on  such  shocks,  whether  the  sufferer,  being  hysterically 
affected,  produces  them  with  the  insane  cunning  of  the  malady, 
or  whether  there  be  developed  some  unexplored  cause.  The 
sequence  may  be  noted  in  modern  examples,  from  the  log  cabins 
of  Red  Indian  trappers  to  the  houses  of  the  poor  in  large  English 
towns  and  the  cottages  of  Devonshire  peasants. 

Christian's  symptoms  appeared  five  days  after  the  curse  was 
pronounced.  She  bounced  from  bed,  shrieking  "  Help  !  Help  !  " 
leaped  up  in  an  amazing  manner,  and  was  said  by  witnesses  to 
have  been  "levitated,"  or  borne  through  the  air — a  statement  which 
constantly  recurs  in  Lives  of  the  Saints,  and  trials  for  witchcraft, 
as  in  the  work  of  lamblichus,  the  old  mystic  correspondent  of 
Porphyry.  As  usual,  Christian's  body  became  rigid ;  "  she  stood 
like  a  bow  on  her  feet  and  neck  at  once  ; "  there  were  "  risings  and 
fallings  of  her  belly,"  as  in  that  parallel  modern  instance,  "  the 
Amherst  Mystery."  No  doubt  these  symptoms  were  due  to  the 
shock  caused  by  the  curse ;   but  now  the   prevalent    superstition 

VOL.  IV.  2   D 


41 8  A   FAST   IS   HELD. 

came  into  play,  and  the  child  declared  that  she  saw  Catherine 
Campbell,  who  had  cursed  her,  and  an  old  Agnes  Naismith, 
reputed  a  witch,  tormenting  her.  Exactly  the  same  stories  were 
told  by  two  boys,  the  victims  of  a  supposed  sorcerer's  curse,  in 
a  singular  trial  held  at  Cideville,  in  France,  in  the  reign  of 
Napoleon  III.     The  malady  is  unvarying  in  its  symptoms. 

After  two  months  Dr  Brisbane  of  Glasgow  was  consulted, 
and  diagnosed  the  case,  quite  correctly,  as  a  "hypochondriac 
melancholy," — that  is,  what  we  now  call  "  hysteria "  for  want  of 
another  word.  The  child,  on  returning  home,  was  no  better  for 
the  doctor's  medicines,  but  rather  the  worse.  On  her  return  to 
consult  Dr  Brisbane  again,  she  spat  out  "straw,  hay,  hair,  wool, 
cinders,  feathers,  and  such  like  trash,"  which,  as  she  insisted,  were 
thrust  into  her  mouth  by  tormentors  visible  to  her  but  not  to 
others.  The  doctor  "  was  confident  she  had  no  human  corre- 
spondent to  subminister "  the  trash,  such  as  "  a  cinder  not  only 
dry  but  hot,  much  above  the  degree  of  the  natural  warmth  of  a 
human  body."  There  were  other  symptoms,  "such  as  I  should 
not  despair  to  reduce  to  their  proper  classes  in  the  catalogue  of 
human  diseases."  Unluckily  these  symptoms  were  universal  in 
sufferers  from  witchcraft,  though  their  real  origin  was  the  perverted 
cunning  of  "  hypochondriac  melancholy."  The  child  was  found 
to  have  a  ball  of  hair  in  her  pocket !  Catherine  Campbell  con- 
tinued to  curse  her  publicly,  was  imprisoned,  and  tormented 
Christian  no  more.  But  the  wretched  child,  now  as  much  in  the 
public  eye  as  her  diseased  vanity  could  desire,  kept  adding  new 
names,  both  of  men  and  women,  to  the  list  of  her  visionary  tor- 
mentors. She  glided  about  the  hall  and  stair  to  the  court  door, 
"  her  feet  did  not  touch  the  ground  so  far  as  anybody  was  able  to 
discern."  The  same  story  was  told  of  Jeanne  d'Arc  in  her  child- 
hood, and  may  be  assigned  to  malobservation.  She  was  "carried" 
to  the  top  of  the  house  and  down  to  the  cellar  in  a  way  incom- 
prehensible to  the  parish  minister,  and  she  developed  clairvoyant 
faculties,  knowing  things  that  she  was  supposed  incapable  of 
knowing  normally.  She  said  that  the  news  was  communicated 
to  her  by  voices ;  in  short,  she  was  a  splendid  case  for  the 
psychical  inquirer. 

The  Commission  appointed  by  the  Privy  Council,  after  reading 
the  evidence,  went  to  Bargarran,  Lord  Blantyre  being  chairman, 
and  examined  the  accused  ;  a  fast,  with  prayer  in  church,  was  held 


CHRISTIAN    SHAW   AS   A   THREAD   MANUFACTURKR.      419 

in  the  afflicted  parish.  Once,  addressing  a  viewless  tormentor, 
Christian  asked,  "  Where  gat  you  these  red  sleeves,"  made  a  plunge 
in  the  right  direction,  and  showed  a  piece  of  red  cloth  which  she 
had  torn  from  the  witch.  The  young  patient  must  have  "palmed  " 
the  red  cloth,  but  witnesses  were  much  impressed. 

On  March  28,  1697,  Christian  suddenly  recovered  her  normal 
health. 

The  Lord  Advocate,  the  shifty  Sir  James  Stewart,  prosecuted 
the  six  prisoners,  and,  after  a  deliberation  of  six  hours,  the  jury 
found  them  all  guilty.  They  had  made  the  usual  confessions  about 
their  league  with  the  devil.  One  man  committed  suicide  in  prison : 
the  rest  were  hanged,  and  then  burned. 

Thirty  years  later  Christian,  now  Mrs  Miller,  wife  of  the  minister 
of  Kilmaurs,  founded  the  Renfrewshire  thread  manufactories. 
Being  very  dexterous  in  spinning  fine  yarn,  she  tried  to  make 
thread  out  of  it,  bleaching  her  experimental  results  on  a  slate 
outside  of  her  window.  Her  sister  helped  her,  and  Lady  Blantyre, 
on  a  visit  to  Bath,  found  purchasers  among  the  lacemakers.  A 
member  of  the  family  in  Holland  surprised  the  secret  of  the 
thread  manufacture  in  that  country,  and  the  construction  of  the 
machines,  which  he  carried  to  Bargarran.  A  mill  was  set  up,  and 
Lady  Bargarran  advertised  her  goods  with  the  trade  mark,  the 
Shaw  blazon,  '■^  azure,  three  covered  cups,  ^r."  The  Scots  gentry 
had  no  scruples  about  going  into  trade.  A  spool  of  Lady  Bar- 
garran's  thread  is  in  the  Museum  of  the  Scottish  Antiquaries.** 

The  sister  of  Fletcher  of  Saltoun  did  more,  perhaps,  for  her 
country  than  his  eloquence  ever  achieved,  by  learning  some  Dutch 
processes,  and  producing  Hollands  linen  at  a  low  price.  Twenty 
years  after  the  Union,  the  funds  promised  by  the  Treaty  were 
at  last  given  to  the  encouragement  of  native  manufactures,  and 
Argyll  headed  a  Linen  Company,  with  a  capital  of  ^^5 00, 000  out 
of  which  (1747)  grew  the  British  Linen  Company  Bank, 

A  sign  of  more  restful  times  was  the  love  of  planting  trees, 
which  the  Earls  of  Argyll  and  AthoU  had  been  manifestly  doing 
before  Argyll's  Rising  in  1685,  for  they  reciprocally  accused  each 
other  of  destroying  plantations  at  Inveraray  and  Blair  of  Atholl. 
After  1 7 16  Grant  of  Monymusk  is  said  to  have  planted  50,000,000 
of  spruce  firs  ;  and  the  Whig  Duke  of  Atholl  was  a  great  planter. 
Another  and  earlier  "  improver "  and  planter  was  the  actual  hus- 
band of  the  lady   best    known   to  the  world  as   "The   Bride  of 


420  GARDENING   AND    PLANTING. 

Lammermoor."  Macky,  in  his  'Journey  through  Scotland'  (1723), 
dilates  on  the  groves  round  the  houses  of  the  great;  Burt,  in 
'Letters  from  the  North,'  declares  that  he  exaggerates,  in  a  spirit 
of  patriotism.  Macky  certainly  makes  Scotland  "set  her  best 
foot  foremost"  in  his  descriptions,  but,  despite  his  name,  gives 
a  very  unkind  account  of  the  clans.  Their  Jacobitism,  he  says, 
does  not  arise  from  love  of  the  Stuarts,  but  from  an  inveterate 
tendency  to  be  "against  the  Government."  This  traveller,  from 
his  ignorance  of  certain  Scottish  customs,  appears  to  have  been 
bred  in  England.  How  he  was  enabled  to  give  a  minute  account 
of  "The  Honours  of  Scotland,"  popularly  supposed  to  have  been 
locked  up  in  the  Castle  at  the  Union,  and  unseen  by  human  eye 
till  the  time  when  Scott  was  present  at  the  opening  of  the  chest, 
is  rather  a  mystery.*^ 

To  the  curious  in  Scottish  gardening,  the  'Letters  of  John 
Cockburn  of  Ormistoun  to  his  Gardener'  (1727-1743)  are  full 
of  interest.**'  This  gentleman  was  the  last  of  the  old  Protestant 
and  Whig  House  of  Ormistoun,  prominent  in  our  history  since 
the  reign  of  Queen  Mary.  In  the  ruined  chateau  is  shown  the 
window  of  a  room  in  which  the  martyr  George  Wishart  is  said  to 
have  been  imprisoned  after  his  capture  by  Bothwell :  here,  too, 
is  a  yew-tree  of  authentic  antiquity  (1474)  under  which  Wishart 
is  said  to  have  preached.  Cockburn  alludes  to  it  in  his  letters 
to  his  gardener.  It  was  in  England,  in  the  pleasant  county  of 
Herts,  that  Cockburn  learned  his  gardening,  hedging,  and  culture 
of  turnips  and  potatoes,  in  a  time  when  Scottish  timber  was  so 
scarce  that  he  actually  sent  down  a  plank  from  London  !  He 
founded  an  agricultural  club :  among  the  members  were  the  chief 
of  the  Macleods,  a  dweller  in  remote  Dunvegan ;  Anderson  of 
Whiteburgh,  who  steered  Prince  Charles  through  the  morass  to 
victory  at  Prestonpans  ;  Colonel  Gardiner,  who  fell  there  bravely  ; 
and  the  Jacobite  Duke  of  Perth,  who  did  not  survive  the  sufferings 
of  1745-46.  Gardening  consoled  the  bereaved.  Cockburn  writes, 
"Archy  Pringle,  who  has  lost  his  wife,  talks  much  of  his  onion- 
seed,  so  I  send  you  a  little  of  it  to  give  it  a  fair  trial."  Cockburn 
must  have  ruined  himself  in  improvements  made  while  his  estate 
was  heavily  burdened  by  a  debt  of  j[,\o,ooo  :  in  1747-49  he  sold 
Ormistoun  to  the  Earl  of  Hopctoun,  in  whose  family  it  remains. 
These  useful  improving  lairds  were  not  infrequently  martyrs  to 
agricultural  science,  but  their  works  lived  after  them. 


NOTES.  421 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XVI. 

1  Ramsay,  ii.  188,  189. 

"  C(.   Social   Life  of  Scotland,    Henry  Grey  Graham,   i.    157,   for   abundant 
references. 

3  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  152. 

*  Wodrow,  Analecta,  iii.  170. 

">  Social  Life  of  Scotland,  i.  171-173. 

*  Scotland  and  Scotsmen,  ii.  243. 

'  Social  Life  of  Scotland,  ii.  155,  citing  '  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasj^ow,'  ii.  549. 

*  Social  Life  of  Scotland,  ii.  159. 
'  Grant,  Burgh  Schools,  p.  479. 

^^  Grant,  Burgh  Schools,  pp.  474,  475. 

"  Lovat  to  Islay,  May  27,  1737.  Hill  Burton,  '  Lovat  and  Duncan  Forbes,' 
pp.  202,  203. 

1-  Social  Life  of  Scotland,  i.  52,  53. 

^'  Life  of  Thomas  Ruddiman,  by  George  Chalmers,  1794. 

"  Grant,  Burgh  Schools,  p.  462. 

^'  Chambers,  Domestic  Annals,  iii.  584. 

''  Story  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  i.  269. 

"  Grant,  Story  of  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  i.  267-270. 

^8  Report  of  Commission  on  Scottish  Universities,  pp.  216-220  :  1837. 

"  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  390. 

20  Maitland  Anderson,  Matriculation  Roll  of  the  University  of  St  Andrews,  1905. 

-^  Grant,  Edinburgh  University,  i.  259-263. 

"  Report,  1837,  p.  290. 

25  Report,  pp.  313-315:  1837. 

•^  Social  Life  of  Scotland,  ii.  190,  note  3.  I  have  not  discovered  the  authority 
for  the  statement. 

^  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  385. 

"'  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  386. 

"'  Report,  p.  35  :   1837. 

28  Report,  p.  81  :   1837. 

29  Report,  p.  85:   1837. 

3°  Social  Life  in  Scotland,  ii.  191,  citing  'Scottish  Antiquary,'  xi.  19. 
^^  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  373. 
^2  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  375. 
•'■''  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  381. 

^*  Munimenta  Univ.  Glasgow,  ii.  404.  ' 

-'•''  Rait,  The  Universities  of  Aberdeen,  p.  185. 
^^  Rait,  The  Universities  of  Aberdeen,  pp.  187,  188. 
^^  Rait,  The  Universities  of  Aberdeen,  pp.  I93-I95. 

'8  Report,  p.  22  :  1837.  *"  Social  Life  in  Scotland,  i.  no. 

*"  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  191-195.  *'^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  189. 

*^  Chambers,  Domestic  Annals  of  Scotland,  iii.  330-333. 
**  Catriona,  by  R.  L.  Stevenson. 

•"  Chambers,  Domestic  Annals  of  Scotland,  iii.  509-511. 
■*"''  Macky,  Journey  through  Scotland,  pp.  266-273. 
i     ■**  Scottish  History  Society,  1904. 


422 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

THE    EXILED    COURT.       THE    AFFAIR    OF    PORTEOUS.       BEGINNING 

OF    "THE    'forty-five." 

1728-1745- 

Returning  from  the  social  aspect  of  Scotland  to  the  political 
history  of  the  country,  we  find  it  almost  empty  of  interest.  Scot- 
land seemed  to  have  settled  down  to  a  quiet,  only  broken  by  the 
divisions  in  the  Kirk  and  the  skirmishes  of  Argyll's  faction  and 
the  Squadrone.  Wade's  roads  were  driven  through  the  disarmed 
North,  and  Jacobitism  appeared  to  be  an  extinct  volcano.  The 
affairs  of  the  exiled  Court  are  hardly  more  interesting  than  the 
records  of  a  house  full  of  quarrelsome  servants,  under  a  master 
and  mistress  who  are  on  bad  terms.  Atterbury  was  no  sooner 
out  of  one  quarrel  with  Murray  (Dunbar)  than  he  engaged  in 
another.  It  is  conceivable  that  he  desired  to  be  made  Governor 
to  Prince  Charles — a  post  occupied  by  Murray.  James  suffered 
enough  for  his  appointment  of  a  Protestant  layman  :  Atterbury  was 
an  impossible  tutor,  a  violently  anti-Popish  divine,  who  could  not 
have  been  employed  in  Rome.  Perhaps  he  had  no  such  ambition, 
though  his  biographer,  Mr  Folkestone  Williams,  thinks  that  Murray 
irritated  him  by  his  pride  in  his  new  office.^  James  replied  to  a 
peevish  letter  of  Atterbury  with  his  wonted  gentleness  and  much- 
enduring  patience. 

"  I  was  very  glad  to  see  from  your  letter  .  .  .  that  your  health 
was  so  much  better  as  to  allow  you  to  write  even  upon  subjects 
disagreeable  both  to  you  and  to  me  ;  and  I  hope  you  are  thoroughly 
persuaded  of  the  great  value  and  esteem  I  have  for  you."  "^  Atter- 
bury could  not  be  persuaded  :  he  was  full  of  jealousies  and  griev- 
ances, and  of  bodily  aches  and  pains,  whicii  did  not  improve  his 


WHARTON    AND   ATTERBURY   (1727).  423 

"  peculiarly  domineering  and  quarrelsome  temper."  Indeed,  his 
health  made  him  scarcely  capable  of  conducting  business  with 
tact  and  coolness.  He  liked,  and  was  grateful  to,  the  young  Duke 
of  Wharton,  who  had  made  a  brilliant  speech  in  his  defence  at 
his  trial,  and,  in  1726,  was  rushing  about  the  Continent,  full  of 
wit,  wine,  and  headlong  folly.  Vienna,  Paris,  Rome,  and  Madrid 
saw  this  Jacobite  meteor,  so  rich  in  promise,  so  barren  in  achieve- 
ment. In  April  1726  the  British  Resident  at  Madrid,  Mr  Keene, 
met  Wharton  at  the  house  of  the  Due  de  Liria,  son  of  Marshal 
Berwick.  Wharton,  for  long,  "  had  not  been  sober,  or  had  a  pipe 
out  of  his  mouth."  "  It  is  in  my  power  to  make  your  stocks  fall 
as  I  think  fit,"  said  Wharton.  "  My  master  is  now  in  his  post- 
chaise,  but  the  place  he  designs  for  I  shall  not  tell  you.  .  .  . 
Hitherto  my  master's  interest  has  been  managed  by  the  Duchess 
of  Perth,  and  three  or  four  old  women  who  meet  under  the  portal 
of  Saint  Germains  :  he  wanted  a  Whig,  and  a  brisk  one,  to  put 
them  in  train,  and  I  am  the  man.  You  may  look  upon  me.  Sir 
Philip  Wharton,  Knight  of  the  Garter,  and  Sir  Robert  Walpole, 
Knight  of  the  Bath,  running  a  course,  and,  by  God  !  he  shall  be 
hard  pressed."  Wharton  was  drunk  :  he  challenged  Keene,  then 
he  sent  an  apology.^  He  was  found  in  the  camp  of  the  Spanish 
army  besieging  Gibraltar,  was  proclaimed  a  traitor  and  forfeited, 
and  died  in  poverty  in  Spain.  So  the  hopes  lit  by  the  brilliant 
Wharton  died  out,  like  so  many  others.  In  1727  Walpole  used 
a  story  of  a  Spanish  and  Imperial  plot  to  restore  James  as  a  means 
of  getting  large  supplies  from  Parliament.*  The  Cause  was  a  bug- 
bear, useful  to  Walpole,  useful  to  the  foreign  Courts  which  thought 
that  James  might  be  serviceable  in  the  case  of  a  rupture  with 
England,  and  he  lived  in  expectation,  long  deferred,  of  such  an 
event. 

In  June  1727  Atterbury,  always  discontented,  assured  James 
of  his  readiness  to  resign  his  post  at  Paris.  "  Vain  airs  have  been 
taken  up,  and  lessening  things  said  of  me  : "  it  is  always  the  same 
story.^  Then  came  the  sudden  death  of  George  I.,  and  the  Earl 
of  Strafford  had  to  tell  James  that  the  event  in  no  way  improved 
his  prospects,  and  that  his  English  friends  were  devoted  to 
"common  prudence"  (June  21,  1727).  For  his  part  James  did 
enter  his  chaise,  and  went  to  Lorraine,  whence  (August  9,   1727) 

*  See  the  reports  of  a  spy,  R.  R.  (Rob  Roy?),  on  the  Highland  preparations,  in 
Colonel  Allardyce's  *  Historical  Papers '  (New  Spalding  Club). 


424  DEATH   OF   ATTERBURY  (1732). 

he  informed  Atterbury  that  he  was  to  be  driven  in  three  days. 
France  had  put  pressure  on  the  Duke  of  Lorraine ;  "he  cannot 
resist  superior  force,  neither  can  I,  so  I  leave  this  place  on  Monday 
next.  .  .  .  The  world  shall  see  that  I  have  done  my  part,  and 
have  not  returned  to  Italy  but  by  force." ^  "Caution  and  fear" 
ruled  the  English  Jacobites,  as  Atterbury  said,  quoting  Lord  Orrery 
to  the  effect  that  they  would  not  move  without  the  aid  of  a  foreign 
army  of  20,000  men.^  Atterbury  thought  that  Cardinal  Fleury 
would  allow  James  to  settle  at  Avignon, — a  vain  speculation. 

At  Avignon,  Inverness  (Hay)  was  living,  a  fugitive  from  the 
temper  of  Clementina.  On  St  Andrew's  Day  1731  Inverness 
professed  himself  a  Catholic,  and  the  last  public  act  of  Atterbury, 
who  died  on  February  15,  1732,  was  to  scold  him  for  his  change 
of  creed.  Atterbury  said  that  he  ought  to  have  been  consulted  : 
he  might  have  shown  Inverness  the  errors  of  his  new  ways.  He 
then  added  everything  disagreeable  that  he  could  think  of, — for 
example,  that  Inverness's  convictions  were  a  last  despairing  effort 
to  regain  his  place  as  James's  Minister.  Obviously  his  conversion, 
in  fact,  made  his  reinstatement  impossible.  Others,  says  Atter- 
bury, regard  Inverness  as  a  spy  and  traitor,  like  Mar,  whom  the 
prelate  never  forgave.  Now,  Inverness  was  turning  Catholic  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  prejudice  against  the  master  whom  he  had 
betrayed.  "  They  impute  to  your  Lordship  views  which  your 
heart,  I  hope,  abhors."  "  No  one  person  whom  I  have  seen  or 
heard  allows  what  you  have  done  to  be  the  effect  of  conviction." 

Shortly  after  making  these  candid  and  consistent  statements, 
Atterbury  left  a  world  of  which  he  had  not  made  the  best.  Much 
trouble  arose  over  his  papers.  The  English  representative  in  Paris 
wanted  "  the  fingering  of  his  papers " ;  Father  Innes  succeeded 
in  having  them  removed  to  the  Scots  College, — a  great  receptacle 
of  Jacobite  archives  ;  and  Atterbury's  son-in-law,  Mr  Morice, 
anxiously  desired  to  possess  them.  James  was  certainly  the  person 
most  interested  in  the  safety  of  the  MSS.  so  eagerly  sought  for 
by  the  English  Government.  Finally,  the  letters  especially  con- 
cerning James,  and  those  of  Ormonde  and  the  Earl  Marischal, 
were  sealed  up  and  left  at  the  Scots  College.  Probably  they  were 
destroyed,  with  many  other  MSS.  entrusted  to  the  College,  at  the 
P'rench  Revolution.  The  papers  as  to  Atterbury's  trial  (which 
could  not  have  cleared  his  reputation)  were  informally  detained, 
apparently  as  damaging  to  Pulteney,  who  in  1732,  as  an  opponent 


THE   CHILDHOOD   OF   PRINCE   CHARLES.  425 

of  Walpole,  might  be  leaning  towards  Jacobitism,  or  expected  to 
serve  the  Cause.  The  detention  of  these  papers  irritated  the 
Rev.  Ezekiel  Hamilton,  a  silly  meddlesome  Jacobite,  whose  letters 
reveal  his  abundant  lack  of  sense.  When  Atterbury's  corpse  was 
landed  in  England,  the  coffin  was  broken  open  by  order  of  the 
Government,  in  the  hope  of  finding  documents.  Atterbury  was 
at  last  laid  to  rest  in  the  vaults  of  Westminster  Abbey,  and  a 
foolish  vapouring  Latin  epitaph  about  "  Robertus  iste  Walpole " 
was  composed  for  his  urn  :  as  it  stands,  the  grammar  is  as  absurd 
as  the  sentiments." 

In  Paris,  henceforth,  James's  affairs  were  mainly  in  the  hands  of 
Lord    Sempill,*^    O'Brien   (whom   he   created    Lord   Lismore),   and  . 
General  Dillon. 

These  affairs  were  like  Penelope's  web,  constantly  woven  and 
unwoven,  and  changing  with  every  change  in  the  alliances  or 
quarrels  of  Europe.  The  health  of  Clementina  declined,  her 
devotional  ardour  increased,  she  corresponded  constantly  with  a 
priestly  confidant,  and  her  temper  did  not  improve,  "  I  will  be 
very  dutiful  to  mamma  and  not  jump  too  near  her,"  says  her  little 
son  Charles,  in  a  letter  to  his  father,  already  quoted,  the  earliest 
that  has  been  preserved.  His  caution  indicates  the  condition  of 
his  mother's  nerves.^  A  Mr  Stafford  was  placed  (1728)  under 
Murray  as  the  Prince's  tutor :  he  long  remained  in  his  service.^*' 
At  seven  the  Prince  could  read,  and  was  learning  to  write  :  his  was 
always  a  sprawling  schoolboy  hand,  and  his  spelling  never  ceased 
to  be  purely  phonetic,  unlike  that  of  his  father  and  brother.  He 
spoke  and  wrote  French  and  Italian  with  the  same  amount  of 
accuracy,  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  his  conqueror,  William, 
Duke  of  Cumberland,  wrote  a  better  hand,  and  spelled  more  like  a 
man  of  this  world.  Whether  it  was  the  fault  of  Murray  or  of 
Sheridan,  of  Stafford  or  of  James  himself,  the  little  Prince  was  very 
ill-educated. 

He  was  a  strong,  lively,  careless  child,  not  amenable  to  authority. 
In  1727  J,  E.,  probably  James  Edgar,  the  king's  private  secretary, 
describes  Charles  as  an  accomplished  rider,  a  good  shot,  and  alert 
at  tennis  and  shuttlecock,  while  nobody  was  a  better  dancer  at  the 
balls  in  season  of  carnival.  The  Duke  of  Liria  mentions  his  "  great 
beauty," — he  had  large  merry  brown  eyes  and  bright  hair, — "  and 
altogether  he  is  the  most  ideal  prince  I  have  ever  met  in  the  course 
of  my   life,"^^      The   early  portraits,  now   so  melancholy  to  look 


426  "THE  ORDER   OF   TOBOSO." 

back  upon,  confirm  this  description.  Charles  had  the  spirit  and 
gaiety  that  were  wanting  in  his  father ;  but  his  father's  virtues,  re- 
ligious and  moral,  were  not  conspicuous  in  him.  A  more  unruly  boy 
never  was,  and  he  was  never  broken  in  to  authority  of  any  kind.  In 
the  quarrels  of  the  jealous  little  Court  he  would  be  of  his  mother's 
party,  as  his  mother  was  opposed  to  his  Governor,  Murray,  and  was 
not  likely  to  support  that  tutor.  Between  Charles  and  his  little 
brother,  Henry,  there  was  the  liveliest  affection,  though  observers 
already  report  their  characters  as  entirely  contrasted  :  "  They  are  of 
mighty  different  tempers,"  writes  James  to  Father  Innes.  Later  he 
reports  that  Charles  is  singularly  innocent  in  certain  matters  :  he 
had  not  the  amorous  complexion  of  the  Stuarts  :  he  was  pursued  by 
the  sex,  to  whom,  if  there  were  any  chance  of  active  occupation,  he 
was  very  indifferent. 

He  became  a  mighty  golfer,  but  by  1734,  at  the  age  of  thirteen, 
"  he  has  got  out  of  the  hand  of  his  governors,"  writes  the  Earl 
Marischal,  who  never  liked  the  Prince,  and  preferred  his  gentle, 
winning  younger  brother,  the  Duke  of  York.  With  "a  body 
made  for  war,"  as  his  enemy.  Lord  Elcho,  confesses,  and  with 
his  high  spirits  and  ardent  desire  to  recover  his  father's  crown, 
Charles  was  the  sole  and  lively  hope  of  his  party, — all  the  more 
as  his  mixed  education  had  early  taught  him,  so  he  himself  says,  ta 
hold  very  lightly  by  his  father's  creed.  He  had  smallpox  in  1730, 
but  his  complexion,  like  that  of  his  ancestress  Queen  Mary,  escaped 
uninjured.  At  this  time  the  much-enduring  James  found  the  temper 
of  Clementina  so  trying  that  he  desired  to  find  "some  prudent 
means  of  separation."  But  in  1731  she  began  to  be  more  devout 
than  ever,  and  even  conceived  it  to  be  her  duty  to  receive  Murray. 
James  corresponded  with  Hay,  and  confided  rather  more  than  was 
necessary  about  the  difficult  temper  of  Clementina. 

About  I  730-1734  the  Earl  Marischal,  now  a  respectable  veteran 
of  the  Cause,  was  in  Rome,  and  reports  the  jealousies  of  the  Court. 
They  formed,  with  the  little  princes,  a  mock  "  Order  of  Toboso," 
and  excluded  Murray  because  he  "  failed  in  respect  to  their  ever- 
honoured  protectress,"  Lady  Elizabeth  Caryl. ^-  Charles  was  accus- 
tomed to  see  his  Governor  made  the  butt  of  the  Earl's  party,  and 
thus  were  his  chances  of  education  ruined.  He  never  treated  Murray 
with  respect  or  even  with  courtesy  :  we  read  the  tutor's  comi)laints 
in  letters  to  James.  The  Earl  Marischal  was  not  happy  in  Rome ; 
he  thought  it   no  place  for  an   honest   man;  his  plan  for  removing 


RECONCILIATION  AND  DEATPI  OF  CLEMENTINA  (1735).      4^7 

the  Prince  to  Corsica  was  set  aside,  and  James,  after  Clementina's 
death,  was  passing  his  time  in  tears  and  prayers  at  her  tomb.  l>y 
1734  they  had  become  entirely  reconciled.  Ezekiel  Hamilton  had 
written  to  her  a  letter  apt  to  revive  the  old  quarrel  :  she  showed  it 
to  James,  doing,  he  says,  "  what  was  like  herself,  and  what  I  took 
very  kindly  of  her."  Happiness,  beyond  all  hope,  was  returning  to 
the  pair,  but  Clementina's  health  was  rapidly  failing.  Their  true 
honeymoon  was  followed  by  the  queen's  death,  in  January  1735, 
and  by  the  misery  of  her  husband. 

The  queen  had  lived  just  long  enough  to  know  the  pride  and  the 
anxieties  of  a  mother  whose  son  is  in  the  wars.  In  June  1734  the 
Due  de  Liria  invited  Prince  Charles  to  join  the  Spanish  army  then 
besieging  the  Imperialists  in  Gaeta.  The  Prince  went  off  in  glee, 
attended  by  Murray,  Sir  Thomas  Sheridan,  and  two  friars,  probably 
despatched  by  Clementina.  Arrived  at  Gaeta,  the  Prince  begged 
to  be  allowed  to  go  into  the  trenches,  but,  as  the  King  of  Naples 
did  not  choose  so  to  hazard  his  own  Royal  person,  permission  was 
refused.  The  boy  did  manage  to  get  under  fire,  in  a  house  which 
was  being  battered  by  the  artillery  of  the  besieged,  remaining  after 
the  generals  of  his  party  had  retired  to  a  less  exposed  position. 

The  Prince  had  plenty  of  courage  as  regards  the  perils  of  war : 
his  departure  from  his  army  after  Culloden  was  caused  by  the 
anxieties  of  one  who  had  a  price  of  ;!^3o,ooo  on  his  head,  and 
was  constantly  warned  of  treacherous  enterprises  against  his  life. 
Nobody  denies  that,  at  Derby,  he  alone  was  anxious  to  advance 
though  three  armies  larger  than  his  own  were  on  his  front,  flank, 
and  rear.  His  conduct  under  fire,  as  a  boy,  was  all  that  his  party 
could  wish  ;  but  his  Spanish  friends  petted  him,  and  we  learn  that 
he  over-ate  himself,  and,  like  most  boys,  hated  the  trouble  of  writing 
letters  to  his  people.  His  exploits  made  him  not  less  wilful  than 
he  had  been,  and  his  tour  as  Count  of  Albany  through  the  great 
cities  of  northern  Italy  (May  1737)  was  too  brilliant  for  his  head. 
He  treated  Murray  no  better  than  usual :  "  He  gives  us  rather  more 
uneasiness  when  he  travels,"  Murray  wrote  to  James.  Meanwhile 
he  had  his  great  purpose  before  him  :  he  hardened  himself  by  long 
marches  and  by  frequent  shooting  expeditions  in  the  hills,  and  he 
acquired,  for  pacific  purposes,  considerable  skill  in  music. 

By  the  time  he  was  seventeen,  when  the  war  between  England 
and  Spain  broke  out, — the  "war  of  Jenkins's  ear," — the  Jacobites 
knew  that,  in  case  of  a  rising,  they  had  a  leader  both  audacious 


^ 


428  LOVAT  TURNS   TO  JACOBITISM  (1737). 

and  popular.  This  was  visible  to  the  scheming  and  ambitious  old 
Lovat,  who  in  1737  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Islay,  to  clear  himself  of 
suspicions  of  Jacobitism.^^  Lovat  (1736)  had  connived  at  the 
escape  of  the  celebrated  Jacobite,  John  Roy  Stewart,  from  the 
prison  of  Inverness,  and  a  witness  declared  that  he  had  heard 
Lovat  give  Stewart,  when  he  sailed  for  the  Continent,  a  message  of 
devotion  to  James.  "He  charged  him  to  expedite  sending  his 
commission  of  Lieutenant-General  of  the  Highlands,  and  his  patent 
of  a  Duke."  ^^  He  was  deprived  of  his  colonelcy  of  an  Independent 
Company,  and  of  his  sheriffship ;  so  he  left  off  courting  Islay,  and 
betook  himself  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  when  the  affair  of  the  Porteous 
Riot  gave  rise  to  a  patriot  party. 

The  story  of  the  slaying  of  Porteous,  Captain  of  the  Edinburgh  City 
Guard,  by  the  mob  has  been  so  admirably  narrated  by  Sir  Walter 
Scott  in  '  The  Heart  of  Mid-Lothian,'  that  no  incident  in  Scottish 
history  is  more  generally  known.  Scott  uses  the  novelist's  privilege, 
and  gives  his  narrative,  as  was  his  custom,  "  a  cocked  hat  and  a 
sword,"  making  Robertson  no  ordinary  smuggler,  but  a  young 
Englishman  of  good  family,  and  introducing  a  humble  heroine, 
Helen  Walker,  in  the  character  of  Jeanie  Deans :  for  the  rest,  his 
account  is  history. 

In  the  spring  of  1736  one  Andrew  Wilson,  with  a  comrade 
named  Robertson,  smugglers,  had  been  sentenced  to  death  "  for 
robbing  a  custom-house,  where  some  of  their  goods  had  been 
deposited," — a  feat  by  no  means  unpopular,  as  the  excise  and 
customs  were  generally  detested.  The  culprits,  on  the  Sunday 
before  the  day  of  their  execution,  were  taken,  as  the  custom  was,  to 
the  Tolbooth  Church  to  hear  their  last  sermon.  Dr  Carlyle,  then 
a  boy,  was  present  "in  a  pew  before  the  gallery  in  front  of  the 
pulpit,"  and  the  culprits  sat  "  in  a  long  pew  not  far  from  the 
pulpit.  Robertson  sat  at  the  inmost  comer  of  the  pew,  and  Wilson 
below  him  "  :  each  man  was  guarded  by  two  soldiers.  While  the 
people  were  flocking  in,  Robertson  leapt  over  the  pew  into  the 
passage  that  led  to  the  church  door  opening  into  Parliament  Close, 
and  escaped  without  opposition, — the  more  readily  as  attention  was 
fixed  on  Wilson's  struggle  with  the  soldiers.  His  first  intention  was 
merely  to  escape,  says  Dr  Carlyle ;  he  had  his  foot  on  the  seat  to 
leap  when  he  was  seized.  He  probably  protracted  his  struggles  to 
divert  attention  from  his  comrade,  who,  says  Dr  Carlyle,  was  heard 
of  no  more  till  he  was  safe  in  Holland.       Tliere  was  much  sympathy 


THE   PORTEOUS   AFFAIR   (1736).  429 

with  Wilson,  as  "the  better  character  of  the  two."  This  led  to  the 
opinion  that  an  attempt  would  be  made  to  rescue  Wilson  at  the 
gallows  on  April  14.^'^' 

One  of  the  Lieutenants  of  the  Town  Guard,  who  had  to  keep 
order  on  such  occasions,  was  John  Porteous,  who  appears  to  have 
risen  from  the  ranks  and  received  a  lieutenant's  commission  in  the 
army.  His  behaviour,  says  Carlyle,  was  gentlemanly,  and,  as  a 
celebrated  golfer,  he  was  popular  with  his  social  superiors,  which 
"added  insolence  to  his  native  roughness."  The  magistrates  had 
borrowed  three  companies  of  an  infantry  regiment,  and  the  sight  of 
them  is  said  to  have  irritated  Porteous,  who  likewise  was  heated 
with  wine.  Carlyle,  against  his  inclination  (he  had  seen  one  hang- 
ing, and  wished  to  see  no  more),  was  taken  by  his  tutor  to  view  the 
scene  from  a  window  in  the  Grassmarket.  The  crowd  was  great, 
but  "there  was  not  the  least  appearance  of  an  attempt  to  rescue." 
The  boys  and  blackguards  merely  threw  stones  and  mud  at  the 
hangman,  as  was  their  custom.  Porteous,  however,  gave  his  guard 
orders  to  fire,  "and  when  the  soldiers  showed  reluctance,  I  saw 
him  turn  to  them  with  a  threatening  gesture  and  in-flamed  counten- 
ance." ^^  Some  of  the  men  fired  high,  and  killed  people  in  the 
windows  overlooking  the  street.  In  the  street  itself  several  people 
fell,  and  lay  dead  or  wounded  when  the  crowd  dispersed.  The 
indictment  against  Porteous  accused  him  of  firing  himself,  taking 
aim  at  and  shooting  a  confectioner,  before  his  men  had  fired.  He 
also  caused  his  men  to  shoot  when  they  were  at  the  West  Bow,  and 
some  seventeen  or  eighteen  men  and  women,  named,  were  killed 
or  severely  wounded. 

For  Porteous  it  was  urged  that  a  severe  attack  was  made  on  his 
men  ;  that  there  was  appearance  of  an  attempt  to  secure  Wilson's 
body,  with  a  view  to  resuscitating  him  ;  that  his  guard  fired  without 
orders,  and  in  spite  of  his  efforts  to  stop  them  ;  and  that  he  did 
not  on  either  occasion,  in  the  Grassmarket  or  at  the  West  Bow,  fire 
himself. ^^  As  for  the  man  said  to  have  been  shot  by  Porteous,  it 
was  urged  that  he  had  cut  down  Wilson's  body,  and  was  shot  by 
one  of  the  guard,  of  his  own  motion. ^'^  The  guard  was  ill-discip- 
lined, and,  without  Porteous's  orders,  had  on  a  former  occasion 
fired  on  a  mob  at  the  settlement  of  an  unpopular  minister  in  the 
West  Kirk.^^  Such  credible  witnesses  as  Sir  William  Forbes  and 
the  Hon.  William  Fraser,  a  son  of  Lord  Saltoun,  declared  that  they 
had  seen  Porteous  shoot  before  they  saw  any  of  the  guard  present 


430  THE   HANGING   OF   PORTEOUS. 

their  pieces.  Other  witnesses  gave  accounts  much  more  favourable 
to  the  accused  :  the  firing  was  sporadic,  without  orders,  and 
Porteous  cried  "Do  not  fire!"-*^  On  July  20  the  jury  unani- 
mously returned  a  verdict  of  "  Guilty  "  against  Porteous,  though  the 
evidence  printed  leaves  the  question  of  facts  obscure.  Porteous  was 
condemned  to  be  executed  on  September  8.  He  petitioned  Queen 
Caroline,  for  King  George  was  abroad,  pointing  out  "the  discrep- 
ancies in  the  hostile  evidence,  which  were  great.  On  August  26, 
a  respite  for  six  weeks  was  granted, — a  measure  very  defensible,  but 
very  irritating  to  the  community.  "  So  prepossessed  were  the  minds 
of  every  person  that  something  extraordinary  would  take  place,"  says 
Dr  Carlyle,  "that  I,  at  Prestonpans,  nine  miles  from  Edinburgh, 
dreamt  that  I  saw  Captain  Porteous  hanged  in  the  Grassmarket." 
This  dream  was  of  the  night  of  September  7.  About  5  a.m.  on 
September  8,  mounted  men,  riding  through  Prestonpans,  brought 
the  news  that  Porteous  had  been  hanged  on  "a  dyer's  tree  at 
2  A.M."  21 

The  official  account  of  this  outrage,  sent  by  the  Lord  Justice- 
Clerk,  Andrew  Fletcher  of  Saltoun,  avers  that,  as  early  as  Sep- 
tember 4,  there  was  a  surmise  that  the  mob  meant  to  burn  down 
the  Tolbooth,  where  Porteous  lay,  on  September  8.  The  magis- 
trates held  an  inquiry,  to  no  result.  About  10  p.m.  on  the  7th 
the  magistrates  had  notice  that  a  few  boys  were  beating  the  West 
Port  drum,  and  they  instantly  ordered  the  Captain  of  the  Town 
Guard  to  have  his  men  under  arms.  They  were,  however,  surprised 
and  disarmed  by  the  mob,  who  seized  some  ninety  firelocks  and 
all  the  gates  of  the  city.  The  magistrates  then  sent  Patrick  Lindsay, 
Esq.,  late  Provost,  to  General  Moyle,  commanding  the  troops. 
He  escaped  by  the  Potter  Row  port,  and  went  to  the  Genera] 
at  Abbey  Hill,  arriving  by  a  quarter  to  eleven.  Moyle  himself 
says  that,  being  in  bed  about  a  quarter  past  ten,  he  heard  of  the 
riot  from  Colonel  Pears,  commanding  Sabine's  regiment  in  the 
Canongate.  Moyle  gave  orders  that  the  six  companies  at  Abbey 
Hill  and  three  from  Leith  should  parade  near  the  guard  in  the 
Canongate.  Mr  Lindsay  then  arrived,  and  Moyle  told  him  that 
he  could  not  force  a  way  into  any  of  the  city  gates  without  a 
legal  authority  from  the  Lord  Justice  -  Clerk  or  some  other  Lord 
of  the  Justiciary.  As  the  Lord  Juslice-Clerk  lived  within  three 
miles,  Moyle  sent  a  galloper  with  a  letter  to  him.  The  reply  was 
not  ready  till  about  i  a.m.,  and  was  directed  to  Lindsay.     Presently 


THE    PARSONS   AND   THE    MURDER.  43 1 

Porteous  was  seized, — the  door  of  the  Tolbooth  having  been  de- 
stroyed by  fire, — was  carried  in  an  orderly  manner  to  the  Grass- 
market  ;  a  rope  was  found  in  a  shop,  a  guinea  was  left  to  pay 
for  it,  and  Porteous  was  hanged  to  a  dyer's  pole.  The  crowd, 
which  was  well  organised  and  committed  no  casual  outrages,  then 
dispersed,  having  accomplished  its  purpo.se. 

Moyle  severely  blames  the  magistrates  for  not  placing  Porteous 
in  the  Castle,  for  sitting  drinking  in  the  Parliament  Close  without 
reading  the  Riot  Act,  and  for  neglecting  to  place  the  port  next 
the  Canongate  in  the  hands  of  regular  troops.  "  I  do  not  hear 
[September  9]  that  any  of  the  criminals  are  yet  apprehended, 
though  well  known  by  many  inhabitants  of  the  town."  The  Lord 
Justice -Clerk  defended  the  magistrates,  who  attempted,  he  says, 
to  disperse  the  mob  at  the  Tolbooth,  but  were  threatened  with 
musketry -fire.  From  Fletcher's  account  Porteous  was  hanged 
before  twelve  o'clock  at  night. -^ 

Writing  to  Walpole  on  September  16,  Fletcher  attributed  the 
leadership  in  the  affair  to  smugglers,  friends  of  Wilson  and  Robert- 
son. He  entirely  despaired  of  finding  evidence  against  the  chief 
agents,  who  were  disguised,  and  protected  by  the  sympathy  or 
timidity  of  witnesses.  Carlyle  says  that  the  Western  Covenanters 
were  foolishly  suspected  :  they  had  recently  renewed  the  Covenants 
on  the  Pentland  Hills.  The  real  agents  were  friends  of  Wilson, — 
not,  as  Islay  supposed,  political  enemies  of  the  Government.  The 
legend  that  Queen  Caroline  threatened  "  to  make  Scotland  a  hunt- 
ing-ground," and  that  Argyll  replied,  "  In  that  case  I  will  take 
leave  of  your  Majesty,  and  go  down  to  my  own  country  to  get  my 
hounds  ready,"  is  better  known  than  attested.  Argyll's  brother, 
Islay,  was  not  of  his  mood,  and  hurried  to  Edinburgh  to  make 
inquiries.  He  found  that  some  prisoners  had  been  arrested,  but 
had  provided  themselves  with  witnesses  to  swear  alibis.  Islay  wrote 
to  Walpole  :  "  The  most  shocking  circumstance  is,  that  it  plainly 
appears  the  High  Flyers  of  our  Scottish  Church  have  made  this 
infamous  murder  a  point  of  conscience.  One  of  the  actors  went 
straight  away  to  a  country  church,  where  the  Sacrament  was  given 
to  a  vast  crowd  of  people,  as  the  fashion  is  here,  and  there  boasted 
of  what  he  had  done.  All  the  lower  rank  of  the  people  who  have 
distinguished  themselves  by  pretences  to  a  superior  sanctity  speak 
of  this  murder  as  the  hand  of  God  doing  justice.  ...  I  have  con- 
versed with  several  of  the   parsons,  and   I   observe  that   none  of 


432  ARGYLL   AGAINST   WALPOLE   (i737)- 

those  who  are  of  the  High  party  will  call  any  crime  the  mob  can 
commit  by  its  proper  name.  ...  I  could  hardly  have  given  credit 
to  the  public  reports  of  the  temper  of  these  saints  if  I  had  not 
myself  been  witness  of  it.  .  .  ."  ^^ 

Islay  now  menaced  the  magistrates  with  the  displeasure  of 
Parliament — in  fact,  the  magistrates  had  behaved  in  their  usual 
careless  way.  How  the  question  of  religious  conscience  was  in- 
volved is  not  clear,  unless  the  hatred  of  the  Union  with  prelatic 
England,  and  the  interference  of  the  Crown  with  the  speedy 
execution  of  Scottish  justice,  influenced  the  High-Flying  ministers. 
The  Lord  Advocate,  Erskine  of  Tinwald,  drew  up  a  report  in  1737, 
describing  the  magistrates  as  "struck  all  of  a  heap,"  and  the  town 
as  intimidated.  Fletcher's  inquiries,  privately  conducted,  were  not 
aided  by  the  magistrates  :  the  witnesses  were  under  abject  terror 
at  first;  later,  a  little  evidence  came  in,  and  a  few  unimportant 
arrests  were  made  of  "insignificant  pitiful  creatures"  on  inadequate 
evidence ;  others  lurked,  or  fled  to  Holland.  Erskine  and  Fletcher 
found  that  "they  laboured  exceedingly  against  the  stream." 2* 
Walpole  desired  to  punish  Edinburgh  as  a  whole,  and  (April  19, 
1737)  a  Bill  was  brought  in  to  disable  the  Provost,  Mr  Wilson, 
from  official  employment,  to  abolish  the  Town  Guard,  and  to  take 
away  the  gates  of  the  Nether  Bow  port.  Three  Scottish  Judges 
were  summoned  from  Scotland  to  be  examined :  they  were  not 
allowed  to  sit  on  the  Woolsack,  but  appeared  at  the  Bar,  in  their 
robes, — a  proceeding  opposed  by  Argyll,  Islay,  Atholl,  Newcastle, 
and  others.^^ 

Argyll,  admitting  the  "  folly "  of  the  Provost,  denounced  the 
procedure  as  "harsh  and  unprecedented."  If  Edinburgh  and  the 
Provost  suffered,  the  thing  would  be  "  cruel,  unjust,  and  fantastical." 
To  pass  the  Bill  was  beyond  the  powers  of  the  Legislature,  and 
contrary  to  the  Treaty  of  Union.  In  case  of  trouble,  the  con- 
demned Nether  Bow  port  could  easily  be  barricaded  by  the  mob, 
and,  as  it  stood,  it  was  of  use  for  custom-house  purposes.  As 
for  the  Town  Guard,  it  had  done  good  service  in  Mackintosh's 
attempt  on  the  town  in  i  7 1 5,  when,  as  the  Duke  said,  he  had 
only  1700  men  under  his  command.  A  few  fanatical  preachers 
were  resi)onsible  for  Scottish  turbulence  :  his  Grace  appears  to 
reflect  on  the  leaders  of  the  Secession,  "lately  started  up,"  or, 
if  he  does  not,  then  some  other  preachers  had  recently  emerged 
into   notoriety.      Hardwicke   replied,  and   Argyll   made  a  personal 


THE   KIRK   AND   THE   GOVERNMENT.  433 

speech  about  his  own  purity  and  candour,  and  about  his  family, 
which  he  said  "  has  been  always  persecuted,"  while,  somehow, 
"  there  is  none  whose  property  is  so  extensive  as  my  own."  ^^  How 
a  family  never  free  from  persecution  acquired  so  large  a  property 
the  Duke  did  not  explain. 

In  the  Commons  Mr  Lindsay,  who  visited  Moyle  at  night, 
made  a  spirited  defence  of  his  constituency.  He  laid  all  blame 
on  the  multitude,  inflamed  by  the  clergy,  and  their  talk  of  "  iniquity 
established  by  law  " — the  law  of  Patronage. ^"^  These  ministers 
were  "a  wild,  hot-headed,  violent.  High  Church"  minority,  "who 
are  not  to  be  satisfied  with  any  power  unless  they  possess  all 
power."  They  had  taught  the  low  people  that  one  law  was  ini- 
quity :  their  parishioners  extended  the  principle  to  any  law  which 
hampered  their  desires.  Hence  arose  "a  new  heretical  sect  of 
Smuggling."  In  a  letter  to  the  Press  (June  17)  Lindsay  declared 
that  none  of  the  Edinburgh  preachers  fell  under  his  censure, 
which  makes  us  wonder  who  the  High  Flyers  mentioned  by  Islay 
can  have  been — the  ministers  who  thought  killing  no  murder.  In 
a  later  debate  Duncan  Forbes  defended  the  conduct  of  the  Provost, 
and  General  Wade  defended  the  cautious  conduct  of  General 
Moyle ;  while  Walpole  declared  that  he  would  treat  any  English 
burgh,  in  similar  circumstances,  as  he  desired  to  treat  Edinburgh. 
Finally,  amendments  reduced  the  Bill  to  the  disablement  of  Provost 
Wilson  from  office,  and  a  fine  of  ;^2ooo  on  the  city  for  the  support 
of  the  widow  of  Porteous.  Unluckily  a  clause  was  added  com- 
pelling the  Scottish  clergy  to  read  from  the  pulpit,  monthly,  a 
proclamation  bidding  their  hearers  exert  themselves  in  the  cause 
of  justice  against  the  murderers.  This  was  an  assault  on  High- 
Flying  consciences ;  and,  says  Carlyle,  people  believed  that  the 
clause  was  meant  to  purge  the  Kirk  of  fanatics,  who  had  been 
denounced  by  Argyll  and  Lindsay.  The  Moderates  induced 
many  ministers  to  refuse  obedience,  "  that  the  great  number  of 
offenders  might  secure  the  safety  of  the  whole."  At  least  one- 
half  of  the  clergy  disobeyed ;  but  "  the  anxious  days  and  sleepless 
nights  of  such  ministers  as  had  families,  and  at  the  same  time 
scruples  about  the  lawfulness  of  reading  the  Act,  were  such  as 
no  one  could  imagine  who  had  not  witnessed  the  scene."  "^ 
Carlyle's  father  suffered  much,  as  Lord  Grange  set  him  against 
the  Act,  and  eight  or  nine  children  drew  him  towards  compliance. 
He  complied.     The  Jacobites  had  no  hand  in  the  Porteous  Riot; 

VOL.  IV.  2  E 


i^ 


434  ORIGINS   OF   THE   CIVIL   WAR. 

but  when  the  Earl  Marischal  heard  of  it  he  wrote,  "  I  will  not  call 
them  Mobb  who  made  so  orderly  an  execution." 

The  chief  cause  of  the  Porteous  affair  was  the  common  detesta- 
tion of  the  English  method  of  the  custom-house.  The  ofificials 
and  their  ofifice  were  hated  from  the  first,  and  smugglers  were 
applauded  and  protected.  Wilson  argued,  against  a  minister  who 
visited  him,  that  his  conduct  had  been  blameless,  and  many 
consciences  were  in  harmony  with  his.  The  murder  of  Porteous 
was,  in  all  probability,  no  more  than  an  act  of  revenge  :  a  parallel 
case,  in  which  the  Scottish  authorities  gave  in  to  the  populace, 
was  the  hanging  of  Captain  Green  for  piracy.  The  national  senti- 
ment was  also  stirred  by  intervention  from  England  and  the  re- 
prieve to  Porteous.  Men  of  intelligence  certainly  directed  the 
mob,  but  only  anecdotes  of  their  courtesy  to  ladies,  given  by  Scott, 
suggest  that  any  of  the  leaders  belonged  to  the  class  of  gentry. 
The  affair  rankled,  partly  because  of  the  attack  on  the  consciences 
of  the  clergy,  partly  because,  as  a  later  writer  says  in  his  allegory 
about  John  and  Sister  Margaret,  "Peggy,  poor  girl,  was  always 
on  the  catch,"  irritable,  and  ready  to  take  offence.  Yet  English- 
men of  various  parties,  for  various  reasons,  abetted  the  Scottish 
members  in  passing  the  amendments  which  took  most  of  the  sting 
out  of  the  Bill  for  the  punishment  and  degradation  of  the  city  of 
Edinburgh.  Any  Jacobite  who  found  comfort  in  the  opposition 
to  the  Bill  by  Scots  of  all  parties  was  greatly  deluded.  England 
and  the  Union  were  universally  unpopular,  but  Scotland  never 
would  prefer  to  them  a  Catholic  king. 

None  the  less  there  existed  a  party — divided,  disorganised,  but 
eager — which  was  ready  to  take  the  risk.  To  understand  the  last 
Jacobite  rising  it  is  necessary  to  study  the  movements  of  this  party 
in  some  detail.  From  the  year  1737  they  brooded  more  assidu- 
ously than  before  over  the  cockatrice's  egg  of  civil  war.  The  egg 
was  chipped,  eight  years  later,  by  John  Murray  of  Broughton. 
The  descendant  of  an  ancient  Tweedside  family,  connected  with 
that  of  Philiphaugh,  and  loyal  to  Montrose  during  the  civil  war, 
Murray  was  born  in  1 7 1 5.  His  father  was  "  out "  in  that  year, 
and  was  ready  to  go  out  again,  but,  from  a  scruple  of  honour,  as 
he  had  been  pardoned  for  his  share  in  the  earlier  rising,  declined 
to  aid  Lockhart  in  secret  intrigues.  At  the  age  of  twenty  the 
son,  John  Murray,  matriculated  at  Leyden  ;  in  1737  he  visited 
Rome,  and  was  admitted  to  the  Lodge  of  Free  Masons  there, — 


WAR   WITH   SPAIN   (i739)-  435 

a  nest  of  Jacobites.  He  prolonged  his  stay  till  1738,  and,  later, 
confessed  that  he  "was  frequently  with  the  Pretender's  son,  but 
never  was  introduced  to  the  old  Pretender."  ^^  Murray  appears 
to  have  greatly  admired,  and  been  sincerely  attached  to,  the  Prince. 
The  President  des  Brosses,  who  was  in  Rome  two  years  later, 
describes  Charles  and  his  brother  as  "amiable  and  graceful  in 
their  manners ;  both  showing  but  a  moderate  understanding,  and 
less  cultivation  than  Princes  should  have  at  their  age.  ...  1 
hear  from  those  who  know  them  both  thoroughly  that  the  eldest 
has  far  higher  worth  and  is  much  more  beloved  by  his  friends ; 
that  he  has  a  kind  heart  and  a  high  courage ;  that  he  feels  warmly 
for  his  family's  misfortunes  ;  and  that  if  some  day  he  does  not 
retrieve  them,  it  will  not  be  for  want  of  intrepidity."^ 

Of  James,  the  President  writes :  "  His  dignity  of  manners  is 
remarkable.  I  never  saw  any  Prince  hold  a  great  assembly  so 
gracefully  and  so  nobly."  Murray  did  not  attend  the  great  assem- 
blies, but  the  Prince  won  his  heart.  On  his  return  to  Holland 
he  was  sought  by  Captain  Hay,  of  James's  household,  who,  after 
a  visit  of  Glenbucket  to  Rome,  was  sent  to  Scotland  by  the  king 
to  report  on  the  state  of  the  party.  Murray  had  orders  to  cor- 
respond with  Edgar,  James's  private  secretary ;  he  became  ac- 
quainted with  Colonel  Urquhart,  who,  old  and  ill,  was  weary  of 
the  duties  so  long  performed  by  Lockhart  of  Carnwath.  The 
Colonel  proposed  Murray  to  James  as  his  own  successor,  and 
the  then  Duke  of  Hamilton  (died  1743),  who  received  Orders  of 
Knighthood  from  both  kings,  approved  of  the  choice.^^ 

In  1738  it  was  plain  to  Duncan  Forbes  that  the  approaching  war 
with  Spain  and  the  tottering  power  of  Walpole  would  give  the 
Jacobites  their  opportunity.  In  the  autumn  of  1738  he  visited 
Andrew  Fletcher,  Lord  Milton,  and  suggested  that  Government 
should  raise  four  or  five  Highland  regiments,  under  ofificers  of 
sterling  loyalty  :  these  regiments  would  employ  the  Jacobite  clans 
in  a  manner  pleasing  to  themselves  and  useful  to  the  country.  "  It 
will  be  absolutely  impossible  to  raise  a  rebellion  in  the  Highlands." 
Lord  Islay  is  said  to  have  won  the  assent  of  Walpole.  If  so,  the 
plan  was  opposed  by  the  rest  of  his  Ministry.^^ 

Meanwhile  the  exertions  of  the  Opposition  made  it  necessary  for 
Walpole  to  resign,  or  to  declare  the  war  of  Jenkins's  famous  ear. 
He  declared  war  against  Spain  on  October  19,  1739.  Cardinal 
Fleury,  chief  Minister  in  France,  was  estranged  from  Walpole,  and 


436  WALPOLE   AND   KING  JAMES. 

it  became  clear  that  England  would  soon  have  to  encounter  not 
only  Spain  but  France.  The  Jacobites  foresaw  their  long-desired 
chance,  none  the  less  as  Argyll  had  gone  into  opposition,  and  been 
deprived  of  all  his  offices.  It  was  probably  when  he  received  his 
dismissal — "  a  message  which  vexed  him " — that  he  spoke  to  a 
singular  companion,  James  Keith,  brother  of  the  Earl  Marischal, 
who  had  been  out  in  17 19,  and,  rising  high  in  Russian  service,  was 
now  on  a  secret  visit  to  London.  "  Fall  flat,  fall  edge,  we  must  get 
rid  of  these  people,"  said  the  Duke  to  Keith.  The  Earl  Marischal, 
who  reports  the  fact,  did  not  know  whether  "  these  people  "  included 
the  Hanoverian  dynasty  or  not.  "  Keith  resolved  on  this  to  speak 
freely  to  him  [Argyll],  but  I  much  fear  he  has  had  no  success."  A 
later  attempt  on  Argyll,  of  1741,  is  reported  by  Scott's  friend.  Lady 
Louisa  Stuart.  Argyll,  she  says,  sent  the  letter  to  King  George,  and 
"felt  wounded  to  the  very  soul."^^ 

Walpole  himself,  as  is  well  known,  sent  to  James  an  oral  message 
by  Thomas  Carte,  the  historian,  expressing  his  desire,  on  certain 
conditions,  to  serve  him.  James  of  course  did  not  rely  on  his 
sincerity,  and  said  so  to  Carte,  adding  that  he  would  "  protect  and 
secure  the  Church  of  England,"  and  would  not  "  touch  a  hair  of  the 
heads  "  of  the  reigning  family  in  the  event  of  his  restoration.  "  I 
thank  God  I  have  no  resentment  against  them,  nor  against  any  one 
living"  (July  10,  1739).^  Probably  Walpole  had  told  George  IL, 
and  obtained  his  permission  to  take  this  step  as  a  means  of  receiving 
information.  He  thus  made  himself  safe  in  all  events.  He  is  said 
also  to  have  wormed  secrets  out  of  the  English  Jacobite  leader, 
Colonel  Cecil,  by  pretending  to  be  of  that  party.  Carte  seems  to 
have  had  vague  hopes  from  Walpole  as  late  as  1741. 

In  this  year  began  "  the  Association "  of  Scottish  Jacobites. 
Murray  of  Broughton  attributes  its  inception  to  personal  motives. 
William  Drummond,  really  Macgregor,  of  Balhaldy  was  needy  and 
ambitious ;  so  was  Lord  John  Drummond,  brother  of  the  young 
Duke  of  Perth  (17 13-1746),  a  captain  in  French  service.  Lord 
John  came  to  Scotland  in  hopes  of  getting  the  party  to  appoint  him 
as  agent  for  James  in  France ;  but  Balhaldy,  being  a  kinsman  of 
Lochiel,  induced  him,  Traquair  (a  brother-in-law  of  the  Duke  of 
Perth),  Lovat,  and  others  to  select  himself.  The  Macgregors,  whose 
very  name  was  proscribed,  were  doubtful  as  to  who  was  their  chief. 
John  Macgregor  or  Murray  of  Glencarnoch  is  recognised  as  chief, 
in    1 7 15,   by  the  author   of  'The  History  of  Clan  Gregor,'  Miss 


MURRAY   AND    HALHALDY.  437 

Macgregor  of  Macgregor  (1901).  But  on  July  27,  17 14,  some 
fourteen  gentlemen  of  the  clan  solemnly  elected  "Alexander  Mac- 
gregor of  Balhaldies"  (Balhaldy)  to  be  the  hereditary  chiefs  not 
merely  the  captain^  of  the  clan.  The  deed  was  witnessed  by 
Lochiel.^^ 

This  Alexander  Macgregor  was  father  of  the  Balhaldy  (William 
Drummond  or  Macgregor)  who  brought  the  Association  into 
being.  In  1740  this  Balhaldy  was  a  man  of  forty-two.  His  in- 
fluence in  the  preparations  for  the  Rising  of  1745  was  consider- 
able, but  he  is  persistently  attacked  by  Murray,  and  by  others  of 
the  opposite  Jacobite  party.  He  has  left  a  Memoir,  in  which  he 
states  that  he  arrived  in  Paris  on  December  1739,  and  reached 
Rome  in  February  1740.  James  sent  him  to  Paris,  and  bade  Lord 
Sempill  introduce  him  to  Cardinal  Fleury.  The  Cardinal  told  him 
that  Louis  XV.  would  grant  such  aid  as  the  Association  asked  for 
as  soon  as  he  was  sure  that  the  English  Jacobites  would  rise  with 
the  Scots.  Intrigues  at  Paris  were  conducted  by  the  Duchess  of 
Buckingham,  Colonel  Brett,  and  the  Earl  of  Barrymore,  but  an 
envoy  of  Louis  to  London  reported  that  the  English  were  mere 
idle  grumblers.  Balhaldy  was  then  sent  over  (1740-41),  and  he 
consulted  Orrery,  Barrymore,  Sir  William  Watkin  Williams,  and 
Sir  John  Hynde  Cotton.  They  were  enthusiastic  but  indolent, 
nor  could  Balhaldy  bring  them  to  unite  with  the  Association.^ 

Murray  now  takes  up  the  tale,  saying  that,  in  March  1741,  he 
met  Balhaldy  in  Edinburgh.  He  found  him  confident  in  French 
aid  :  20,000  stand  of  arms,  with  troops  and  money,  were  ready. 
Lochiel,  Cluny,  and  Lovat  were  in  Edinburgh.  Murray  knew 
Lovat's  character  well,  and  was  reluctant  to  meet  him.  He  was 
introduced  to  him,  however,  by  Macleod  of  Muiravonside,  an  accom- 
plice in  the  abduction  of  Lady  Grange,  and  "  a  gentleman  of  honour 
and  prudence."  Murray  boasts  that  Lovat  trusted  him,  while  he 
did  not  trust  Lovat.  Balhaldy  then  went  to  France  by  way  of 
England,  and  there  (December  1742)  found  the  party  better 
organised  and  in  better  spirits.  Balhaldy  spent  most  of  1743  in 
drawing  up  statements  of  the  strength  of  the  English  party,^"  while 
Murray  sounded  adherents  and  collected  money  and  promises  in 
Scotland.  He  had  little  success :  Hamilton  refused  to  be  explicit, 
and  Murray  was  troubled  by  the  affairs  of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  who 
were  again  at  odds  with  James  about  the  appointment  of  a  Primus. 

We    now    compare    facts    from    another    source.      In    1901    the 


438  -      INTRIGUES    IN    1743. 

Capitaine  F.  Colin,  of  the  Historical  Section  of  the  French  Efat- 
Major,  published  some  documents  in  the  French  Foreign  Office  and 
Admiralty.^^  From  them  it  appears  that  Cardinal  Fleury  negotiated 
with  Sempill  and  Balhaldy  secretly,  and  without  putting  pen  to 
paper,  till  i  741,  when  he  took  Amelot  into  his  confidence.  Sempill 
had  introduced  to  him  "  many  English  lords  of  high  rank,  who  had 
crossed  to  France  to  give  the  strongest  assurances  "  of  their  loyalty 
and  the  loyalty  of  the  City  to  James. ^^  These  peers  would  never 
commit  themselves  to  writing,  but  among  the  seven  dukes  enumer- 
ated by  Sempill  *°  occurs  the  name  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford.  Accord- 
ing to  Mr  Edgar,  James's  secretary,  speaking  to  Lord  Elcho,^^  no 
man  had  so  often  entered  James's  palace  in  Rome  by  the  secret 
passage  through  the  cellar  as  the  Duke  of  Bedford.  It  thus  seems 
that  the  English  peers,  to  an  unsuspected  extent,  dabbled  in  Jacob- 
ite intrigue  when  on  the  Continent.  They  alleged  that  the  names 
of  the  seven  who  invited  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  England  in  1688 
had  been  found  in  the  Prince's  cabinet,  and  copied  by  an  underling  : 
they  would  place  themselves  in  no  such  peril. 

Fleury  dying  in  February  1 743,  the  whole  intrigue  was  renewed  with 
Amelot  and  Maurepas ;  Cardinal  Tencin,  we  know,  was  left  out  of 
the  secret,*^  as  he  informed  Prince  Charles  on  March  15,  1744.** 
As  Balhaldy  tells  us,  in  the  late  summer  of  1743  Mr  Butler,  an 
equerry  of  Louis  XV.,  crossed  to  England,  under  the  pretence  of 
buying  horses.  He  was  introduced  to  Colonel  Cecil  and  to  the 
English  leaders.  He  was  given  to  believe  that  in  the  Common 
Council  and  aldermen,  196  out  of  236  were  Jacobites.  He  was 
taken  to  the  country  houses  of  the  nobles,  and  to  Lichfield  races, 
where  all  the  gentry,  300  in  number,  prayed  for  a  Restoration,  and 
he  received  a  list  of  seventy  Jacobite  peers.*''  The  list  is  printed, 
and  is  extremely  imposing.'*^ 

Sempill's  Memoir  encouraged  the  most  sanguine  expectations, 
and  is  probably  one  of  the  papers  by  which  Balhaldy  later  over- 
came the  reluctance  of  James  to  send  Prince  Charles  to  France. 
There  were  only  16,000  regular  troops  in  England;  in  Scotland 
were  one  regiment  of  dragoons,  three  of  foot,  the  Black  Watch,  and 
the  Independent  Companies.  Even  these  troops  were  ready  to 
desert,  from  their  hatred  of  the  Hanoverians.  But  French  and 
Swiss  troops  were  of  the  first  necessity  ;  no  Irish  need  apply  in 
England  :  in  Scotland  they  were  less  detested.  An  invasion  up 
the  Thames  was  finally  judged   best   by  the  Jacobites :    the  plan 


balhaldy's  schemes.  439 

needed  the  aid  of  English  pilots,  who  were  promised,  but  never 
sent.  Saxe  should  command,  under  Ormonde  :  the  Prince  could 
not  leave  Rome  without  giving  the  alarm  to  the  Government.  This 
advice  was  neglected  by  France,  which  also  rejected  the  plan  of 
invasion  in  fishing-boats  ! 

Murray  at  this  time  had  many  anxieties  about  the  Association  for 
bringing  back  James.  The  members  in  the  secret  were  few  :  a  French 
invasion  would  find  the  other  Jacobites  unprepared  ;  and  they  were 
certain  to  object  to  Lovat  as  chief  director,  and  to  Balhaldy  as 
principal  agent.  "The  king's  situation  made  it  improper  for  him 
to  object  to  either,  had  he  been  never  so  much  convinced  of  the 
self-interestedness  of  the  first,  or  of  the  fallacy  and  incapacity  of 
the  latter."  James  must  have  understood  Lovat,  of  whom  he 
had  old  experience,  but  the  real  character  of  Balhaldy  is  a  puzzle. 
He  certainly  had  enterprise,  but  is  accused  of  deceiving  the  party 
and  the  French  by  wildly  optimistic  statements.  His  own  brief 
memorial  does  not  corroborate  this  charge ;  but  in  any  case  the 
party,  always  rent  by  jealousies,  was  split  up  by  distrust  of  Balhaldy. 
According  to  Murray,  he  assured  France  that  Sir  Alexander  Mac- 
donald  of  Sleat  was  engaged,  while  Sir  Alexander  declared  that  he 
had  never  spoken  to  Balhaldy  on  the  subject.  An  opposite  account, 
favourable  to  Balhaldy,  was  given,  on  the  evidence  of  a  correspond- 
ence, now  lost,  by  a  Miss  Macleod  of  the  Dunvegan  family  :  Sir 
Alexander's  conduct  was  remarkably  fickle  in  any  case.^^  The  Earl 
of  Traquair  was  also  a  broken  reed  :  it  was  to  him  that  Balhaldy, 
in  December  1741,  announced  a  French  attempt  for  the  spring  of 
1742,  the  year  of  Walpole's  fall,  and  of  much  public  indignation 
caused  by  the  action  of  George  H.  when  he  took  Hanoverian  troops 
into  British  pay.  All  parties  in  the  British  Parliament  were  split, 
and  Argyll,  who  demanded  an  appointment  in  the  new  Government 
for  an  almost  open  Jacobite,  Sir  John  Hynde  Cotton,  caused  more 
persons  than  Walpole  to  doubt  his  loyalty  to  the  House  of  Hanover. 
Argyll  was  assured  that  Cotton  should  have  a  place,  and  was  ready 
himself  to  resume  office  and  his  regiment ;  but  the  king  discarded 
Cotton,  and  Argyll,  jealous  of  Tweeddale  as  Scottish  Secretary, 
resigned. 

In  such  troubled  waters  the  Jacobites  expected  good  fishing,  but 
Murray  found  that  Balhaldy's  report  to  Traquair  was  utterly  vague : 
there  were  no  certainties.  Districts  had,  indeed,  been  appointed  to 
each   member  of  the  Association,  but  only  Lochiel  organised  his 


440  MURRAY  IN   PARIS  (1743). 

country,  Lochaber ;  Lovat  did  little  or  nothing  with  the  great  con- 
federacy of  Clan  Chattan  and  the  Mackenzies ;  Sir  James  Campbell 
was  indolent  in  Argyll  and  Mull,  where  the  Macleans,  Maclachlans, 
and  the  remnant  of  Macdonalds  in  Kintyre,  under  Macdonald  of 
Largie,  were  trusty  men.  The  chief  of  the  Macleans,  Sir  Hector 
of  Dowart,  was  not  even  a  member  of  the  Association.  The  Duke 
of  Perth,  who  should  have  managed  the  Gordons,  Farquharsons, 
and  Ogilvies,  was  absent  in  England ;  and  as  for  the  Border,  Traquair 
"  never  so  much  as  endeavoured  to  engage  one  man."  The  gentry 
of  the  Border  might  subscribe,  Murray  thought,  but  their  efforts  in 
the  field  would  be  "  very  trifling." 

Thus  for  a  rising  in  early  spring  1742  there  was  neither  organisa- 
tion, clothes,  weapons,  nor  money.  Murray's  idea  was  to  do  nothing 
on  Balhaldy's  information,  but  to  send  an  agent  to  France  and 
endeavour  to  obtain  definite  intelligence.  Murray  himself  was 
chosen,  with  the  approval  of  Lovat,  who  sent  "  his  note  of  hand 
for  ;^ioo,"  not  negotiable  without  better  than  Lovat's  security. 
Murray  himself  backed  Lovat's  worthless  bill,  and  borrowed  money 
from  the  New  Bank.  Though  he  writes  in  his  own  defence,  he 
certainly  dipped  his  estate  (sold  in  1764)  in  his  ardour  for  the 
Cause.  Lovat  openly  avowed  that  his  one  motive  was  desire  of 
a  dukedom :  throughout  life  he  aimed  at  nothing  but  the 
aggrandisement  of  himself  and  his  clan,  his  ruling  passion,  pursued 
with  equal  cunning  and  folly. 

In  January  1743  Murray  set  out  for  Paris,  much  damped  by  the 
news,  received  in  London,  of  the  death  of  the  French  Minister, 
Cardinal  Fleury,  the  hope  of  the  Jacobites  (January  29,  1743). 
When  Murray  arrived  in  Paris,  Balhaldy  assured  him  that  Amelot 
(Foreign  Minister  1737 -1744)  was  equally  friendly.  The  pair 
visited  James's  agent.  Lord  Sempill,  who  was  never  of  the  Forward 
party,  and,  with  Balhaldy,  tried  to  prevent  Murray  from  achieving 
the  object  of  his  journey, — a  personal  meeting  with  Amelot.  He 
found  at  last  that  Amelot  "  rather  savoured  of  the  dissuasive."  He 
also  discovered  that  Sempill  and  Balhaldy  were  at  odds  with  the 
Earl  Marischal,  whose  genial  and  honourable  character  made  him 
much  trusted  in  Scotland.  The  Earl  himself,  in  a  letter  to  Lord 
John  Drummond  of  this  date,  suspects  Sempill  of  "accusing  or 
threatening  him  "  as  lukewarm.  The  correspondence  amply  proves 
that  Lord  John  and  the  Earl  were  at  feud  with  Sempill  and 
Balhaldy.      Lord   John   says   that  the   Scots   bade  him   tell  James 


MURRAY   AND   THE   ENGLISH   JACOBITES   (i  743-1  744).      44I 

that  Balhaldy  "  has  always  been  in  low  life,  and  obliged  to  fly  the 
country  in  danger  of  being  taken  up  for  a  fifty-pound  note.  .  .  ." 
James  himself  vainly  tried  to  reconcile  these  differences.*^ 

Who  could  dream  that  there  was  danger  in  a  party  with  such 
leaders,  so  contemptuous  each  of  the  other?  "The  epithet  they 
dignified  the  Earl  Marischal  with  was  '  honoural)le  fool.' "  ^-"^ 
{Murray's  narrative  here  is  fully  corroborated  by  the  letters  in 
the  Stuart  MSS.)  Accompanied  by  Balhaldy,  Murray  went  to 
London,  where  he  found  the  aged  Colonel  Cecil,  the  Jacobite 
agent,  bitter  against  Sempill,  and  full  of  complaints.  Balhaldy  says 
that,  by  his  desire,  a  Mr  Butler,  who  was  trusted  by  France,  went 
with  him,  and  that  they  returned  in  October  1743,  "well  pleased 
with  our  success,"  with  full  details  about  the  readiness  and  organisa- 
tion of  the  English  Jacobites, — information  on  which  Louis  XV. 
decided  to  invade  England  early  in  1744-^^  But  Murray  writes, 
"  If  Balhaldy  had  represented  things  fairly  there  was  not  the  least 
ground  for  encouragement."  Balhaldy  had  been  most  anxious  to 
meet  Erskine  of  Grange,  from  whom  he  went  to  Lord  Orrery,  and 
returned  "  with  apparent  satisfaction."  Grange  was  closely  allied 
with  Lovat,  and  if  Balhaldy  accepted,  through  Grange,  whatever 
Lovat  chose  to  say,  he  was  a  politician  of  much  simplicity.  It  is 
plain,  from  letters  written  after  1745,  that  Balhaldy  really  was, 
and  long  continued  to  be,  closely  allied  with  the  leading  English 
Jacobites,  though  Murray  doubted  the  fact.  He  himself  went 
home  discouraged,  and  discouraging  the  Duke  of  Perth,  whom 
he  met  at  York.  He  wrote  a  letter,  now  lost,  to  James,  with 
Cecil's  complaints  of  Sempill  and  Balhaldy ;  and  he  wrote  to  the 
Earl  Marischal,  informing  him  of  what  he  well  knew — the  intrigues 
of  Balhaldy  and  Sempill.  This  letter  Traquair  promised  to  take  to 
London,  and  forward  thence. 

Meanwhile  Murray  tried  to  intrigue,  through  Gordon  of  Earls- 
toun,  with — the  Cameronians  !  He  says  that  James  had  promised 
them  "an  unrestrained  liberty  of  conscience,  with  a  yearly  salary 
to  each  of  their  preachers."  His  authority  is  vague,  and  the  story 
needs  corroboration.  Traquair  now  returned  from  London,  where 
he  had  met  Balhaldy  and  the  Duke  of  Beaufort,  the  Earls  of 
Orrery  and  Barrymore,  and  Sir  John  Hynde  Cotton,  the  flower 
of  the  English  Jacobites.  Their  intentions  "were  honourable 
but  vague,"  but  Barrymore  offered  ^^  10,000.  Perhaps  Balhaldy 
knew    more    than   Traquair   told   Murray :    these   intriguers   always 


442  BALHALDY   ENLISTS   FRANCE  (1743). 

kept  each  other  in  the  dark.  At  least  it  is  clear  that  Balhaldy's 
sanguine  account  of  the  state  of  the  English  party  was  the  chief 
cause  of  the  coming  of  Prince  Charles  from  Rome  to  France,  and 
of  the  attempted  invasion  in  1744.  Balhaldy  thus  launched  Prince 
Charles,  and,  so  far,  was  the  main  author  of  his  celebrated  expedi- 
tion, the  last  serious  effort  of  a  part  of  Scotland  against  the  Union. 

Murray  was  dissatisfied  with  Traquair's  report,  and  much  more 
with  Traquair's  confession  that  he  had  shown  to  Balhaldy  Murray's 
letter  to  the  Earl  Marischal,  and  that  they  had  burned  it, — "  a  liberty 
I  would  not  have  taken  with  my  footman's  letter."  ^° 

What  was  the  true  condition,  what  were  the  plans,  of  the  English 
Jacobites  ?  If  ever  the  Stuart  MSS.  contained  any  proofs  that  they 
were  in  earnest,  if  Beaufort  promised,  as  Lovat  said,  to  raise  12,000 
men,  all  traces  of  such  dealings  have  been  removed,  during  the 
strange  wanderings  through  many  hands  of  these  documents.^* 
The  money  offered  by  Barrymore  was  never  contributed  to  the 
Cause,  and  the  simplest  explanation  is  to  suppose  that  Balhaldy 
allowed  himself  to  be  confident  on  slender  grounds  ;  while  there  was 
no  arrangement  made  between  the  English  and  Scottish  partisans. 
Traquair,  the  go-between,  was  as  cautious  as  credulous.  We  see 
Murray,  whose  heart  was  engaged,  and  who  had  a  head  for  business, 
wandering  among  futile  persons  in  an  enchanted  mist. 

It  is  apparent  that  James  was  aware  of  Murray's  anxieties.  The 
Laird  of  Broughton  appears  not  to  have  known  that,  as  early 
as  June  1743,  Cardinal  Tencin  was  proposing,  or  was  represented 
by  Balhaldy  as  proposing,  a  visit  of  Prince  Charles  to  France.  On 
October  i,  James,  writing  to  Balhaldy,  says,  "It  is  a  very  sensible 
mortification  to  me  that  the  worthy  Sages  [Murray  and  his  party] 
should  be  kept  so  long  in  expectation  and  suspense,  but  I  would 
fain  hope  that  the  time  is  near  when  they  will  have  occasion  to  try 
and  show  their  skill.  .  .  ."  ''"  He  then  speaks  of  the  Prince's  desire 
to  be  with  them.  Charles  kept  himself  in  constant  training  by  long 
shooting  expeditions, — "nobody  here  can  keep  up  with  him." 

The  French  documents  show  how  well  Balhaldy  had  succeeded 
in  enlisting  France.  The  reports  on  the  English  Jacobites,  brought 
by  Butler  in  October,  were  accepted  by  Louis,  and  formal  prepara- 
tions of  ships  and  men  began  on  November  15,  1743.  Captain 
Colin  at  once  blames  the  comfortable  English  for  refusing  to  rise 
early  in  January  1744,  and  points  out  that  French  prei)arations 
could   not  be  finished   till   the  middle  of  February   1744.^^^     The 


BALHALDY    LAUNCHES   THE   PRINCE   (1744).  443 

motives  of  Louis  were  to  cause  the  recall  of  the  British  troops  from 
Germany,  and  to  avenge  many  insults  to  his  flag,  and  the  aid  given 
to  Maria  Theresa  by  England.  He  justified  his  attack  without  y 
declaration  of  war  by  the  recent  proceedings  of  England  against- 
Spain  in  1739  (February  i,  1744).^*  On  December  10,  1743, 
Louis  communicated  his  designs  to  the  King  of  Spain  :  at  this 
moment  he  expected  his  fleet  to  sail  on  January  i,  1744.^^ 
Twenty -seven  merchant  vessels  were  being  prepared  as  trans- 
ports, with  a  convoy  of  Barail's  squadron  of  seven  ships  of  war. 
Roqueville  was  to  command  the  Brest  squadron,  and  watch  and 
engage  the  English  fleet. 

Balhaldy,  in  Paris,  obtained  leave  to  go  to  Rome  to  arrange  the 
Prince's  journey,  and,  according  to  his  own  Memoir,  he  arrived  in 
the  eternal  city  about  December  ig,  1743.^^  He  gained  the  assent 
of  James,  left  Rome  on  December  25,  and  was  back  in  Paris  by 
January  3.  Murray  mentions  that  Balhaldy  overcame  James's 
reluctance  by  aid  of  "two  long  memorials," — those  brought  by 
Butler  (clearly  tiot  by  an  actual  written  promise  from  Louis), — and 
announced  to  Traquair  a  French  descent  for  January  15,  His 
letter  did  not  arrive  till  February  1744,  and  contained  the  first 
intimation  of  his  journey  to  Rome.  By  this  time  the  French  move- 
ment of  forces  to  the  coast,  where  the  Earl  Marischal  awaited  them 
at  Boulogne,  was  universally  known,  and  Murray  and  the  Duke  of 
Perth,  aware  of  the  Jacobite  lack  of  preparation,  were  much 
perplexed. 

According  to  Balhaldy,  Louis  XV.  was  pleased  with  his  con- 
duct, "  but  I  was  soon  after  mortified  enough  by  our  English  friends 
refusing  the  expedition  at  that  season  of  the  year."  He  visited  the 
English  partisans  on  January  1 1,  and  they  accepted  the  invasion  for 
the  middle  of  February. ^^  According  to  Murray,  Balhaldy  announced 
the  intention  to  send  1 2,000  men,  under  Marshal  Saxe,  from  Dun- 
kirk to  England,  and  3000  men,  with  arms  and  money,  for  Scotland. 
Balhaldy  wanted  Erskine  of  Grange  to  come  at  once  to  London, 
very  naturally,  as  he  generally  visited  town  in  spring,  and  his 
journey  would  not  rouse  suspicion,  while  he  could  communicate 
the  English  arrangements  to  the  Scots. 

Odd  arrangements  they  were.  The  English  leaders  meant  to  lie 
quiet  in  the  country,  or  escape  on  board  the  French  fleet,  till  the 
French  landed :  so  says  Balhaldy.  There  were  two  letters  of 
Balhaldy's  to  the  Scots  :  one  was  long  retarded,  and  arrived  with  the 


444       DUBIOUS   DEALING   OF   LOUIS   WITH   JAMES   (i743)- 

second,  so  that  Murray,  distrustful  and  perplexed,  advised  delay  till 
Balhaldy  was  asked  to  explain.  Lochiel  and  Lovat  should  be 
warned,  and  Perth  should  win  over  Lord  George  Murray,  who  had 
long  been  resident,  a  pardoned  man,  in  Scotland. 

Meanwhile  Prince  Charles  had  made  his  secret  and  fateful  escape 
from  Rome  to  France,  hoping  to  sail  with  the  French  invading 
force.  On  Christmas  Day  1743  James  wrote  to  Ormonde,  "The 
King  of  France  has  determined  to  act  in  his  favour,  though  requir- 
ing all  for  the  present  to  be  kept  secret."  Ormonde,  then  at 
Avignon,  a  veteran  busied  with  love  affairs  {^^  amoors"  writes  the 
Prince),  was  to  be  Regent  till  the  Prince  joined  the  expedition. 

To  what  precise  extent  Louis  was  committed  to  accept  Charles, 
it  is  hard  to  discover :  perhaps  he  was  not  committed  at  all.  On 
December  23,  1743,  James  wrote  to  Amelot  and  to  Louis  express- 
ing his  lively  gratitude  for  their  promises  as  conveyed  by  Balhaldy. 
But  James  says  he  is  relying  on  the  "probity"  of  Balhaldy,  and 
confesses  that  he  would  have  liked  something  more  precise  than 
communications  which  appear  to  have  been  orally  made.  James 
thinks,  and  thinks  correctly,  that  Cardinal  Tencin  is  not  in  the 
secret,  which  he  himself  has  not  laid  open  to  his  chief  Paris  agent, 
O'Brien.  He  tells  Louis  that  he  is  averse  to  sending  the  Prince 
to  France  on  such  guarantees  as  he  has  received,  and  that  he  is 
acting  beyond  the  ordinary  rules  of  prudence  in  such  cases. ^^ 

It  is  clear  that  Louis  acted  with  more  than  caution  ;  that  he  left 
himself  a  loophole, — perhaps  that  he  could  deny  having  invited  the 
Prince,  for  James  had  obviously  no  written  promise,  and  Cardinal 
Tencin  could  disclaim  all  knowledge  of  Balhaldy's  mission,  or,  at 
least,  of  the  circumstances  which  led  up  to  it.  This  double  and 
secret  policy  was  very  characteristic  of  the  French  king :  compare 
'  Le  Secret  du  Roi,'  by  the  Due  de  Broglie.  James,  however,  issued 
a  general  manifesto,  and  a  warrant  of  Regency  for  the  Prince,  on 
December  23,  1743.'^''  On  January  2,  1744,  James,  writing  to 
Sempill,  praises  Balhaldy's  arrangements  :  he  had  taken  a  gentleman 
to  Italy,  apparently  Sir  John  Graham,  to  accompany  the  Prince. 
On  January  i  o  Charles  left  Rome  just  after  midnight  of  January  9  : 
the  king  was  never  to  see  the  Prince  again.  The  Duke  of  York 
himself  was  not  in  the  secret,  and  supposed  that  a  mere  hunting 
expedition  was  intended  at  the  Due  de  Sermoneta's  place,  Cisterna.*^ 
The  hunting  equipage  had  been  despatched  publicly  on  January  7. 
On   the  9th  Charles  obtained  access  to  the  keys   of  the  gate  of 


PRINCE   CHARLES   SAILS   TO   FRANCE   (1744).  445 

St  John,  and  passed  out,  with  Murray,  soon  after  midnight — that  is, 
in  the  first  hour  of  January  10.  The  Duke  of  York  was  told  that 
he  would  find  his  brother  at  Albano,  and  drove  thither  at  6  a.m.  on 
January  10.  Charles  soon  left  his  carriage,  and  rode,  telling  Murray 
to  go  to  Albano.  In  place  of  proceeding  thither,  Charles  and  his 
groom,  or  a  Mr  Buchanan  dressed  as  a  groom,  rode  to  Frascati,  and 
so  drove  to  Lerici  and  Genoa  undetected.  He  got  post-horses  and 
passports  from  Cardinal  Acquaviva. 

The  escape  of  the  Prince  may  have  been  facilitated  by  the  descrip- 
tion of  his  person,  circulated  by  Sir  Horace  Mann,  the  represent- 
ative of  England  at  Florence.  Mann  describes  Charles's  eyes  as 
"  blue,"  Lord  Mahon  says  "  light  blue."  In  all  of  the  many 
authentic  portraits  the  Prince's  large  eyes,  somewhat  a  fleur  de 
teie,  are  brown.  His  hair  was  a  bright  brown,  more  fair  at  the 
tips,  which  sometimes  were  allowed  to  fall  beneath  the  little 
white  perruque  of  the  period.  His  height  was  about  six  feet  r 
he  had,  as  we  have  quoted  Lord  Elcho,  "a  body  made  for 
war,"**^  and  was  capable  of  enduring  great  fatigue.  His  com- 
plexion, "  the  bloom  of  a  lass  "  in  boyhood,  was  bronzed  with  ex- 
posure, his  face  was  a  long  oval,  his  nose  verged  on  the  aquiline ; 
his  expression,  in  moments  of  repose,  was  melancholy.  His  father 
speaks  of  a  slight  fondness  for  wine,  which  was  not  apt  to  be 
corrected  in  Jacobite  society  :  to  women  he  was,  at  this  period, 
indifferent.  While  the  Prince  hurried  North,  his  brother  Henry 
stayed  at  Fogliano,  where  Charles  also  was  supposed  to  be  shoot- 
ing, and  sent  gifts  of  game  to  friends  in  Rome.  Charles,  we  learn 
from  a  letter  of  Henry's  (February  6),  "was  locked  up  at  Savona," 
perhaps  in  quarantine,  and  "  was  in  a  very  ugly  situation."  Of  this 
adventure  we  know  no  more ;  Charles  reached  Antibes  by  sea 
(January  22  or  23),  and,  after  a  delay  to  be  explained,  was  in  Paris 
on  February  10,  and  writes  thence  to  James,  "I  have  met  with  all 
that  could  be  expected  from  the  King  of  France,  who  expresses 
great  tenderness,  and  will  be  careful  of  all  my  concerns."  ^"  If  this 
means  that  the  king  and  the  Prince  met,  James  did  not  so  under- 
stand it:  on  August  11,  1745,  he  writes  to  O'Brien  that  Charles 
has  never  seen  Louis.^^ 

Apparently  this  letter  of  Charles  was  written  after  behaviour  less 
hospitable  on  the  part  of  Louis.  On  February  1 3  James  expressed, 
to  Sempill,  his  "astonishment  and  concern"  at  "the  negligent  and 
indifferent  behaviour  to  the  Prince."     Charles  was  not  expected  at 


446  SCOTTISH   CONFUSIONS  (1744). 

Antibes,  as  appears  from  Villeneuve's  letter  on  his  arrival  at  that 
port  (January  23,  1744).  Charles,  travelling  as  "  Malloch "  (the 
assumed  name  of  Balhaldy)  with  Graham,  was  detained  at  Antibes 
in  quarantine  for  eight  days, — strange  treatment  of  a  Royal  guest.^ 
The  detention  was  by  order  of  Mirepoix.  Charles  and  Graham 
then  rode  to  Paris,  and  it  appears  from  the  Prince's  letter  to  James 
that,  after  all  this  hesitation,  he  was  kindly  treated  by  Louis.  On 
February  15  Sempill  acknowledges  the  receipt  of  10,000  livres  for 
the  Prince's  use.^^ 

From  all  these  details  the  paltry  hesitations  of  Louis,  and  perhaps 
the  too  sanguine  character  of  Balhaldy,  may  be  understood.  James 
relied  on  the  honour  of  Louis  and  on  the  probity  of  Balhaldy,  as 
he  wrote ;  but  Louis  had  said  too  little,  and  perhaps  Balhaldy  had 
promised  too  much.  Thus  the  unfortunate  Charles  was  embarked 
without  a  compass,  on  a  perilous  sea,  in  a  fog  of  jealousies  and 
evasions,  of  duplicities  and  mistrusts. 

The  mistrusts,  the  lack  of  organisation,  and  the  difficulty  of 
sending  messages,  left  the  Scottish  Jacobites  in  ignorance  during 
the  days  of  intended  movement  in  February-March  1744.  The 
Duke  of  Perth  came  to  his  own  country  and  caballed  with  Lord 
George  Murray,  who,  according  to  Murray  of  Broughton,  "at  first 
proposed  to  raise  the  people  of  Atholl,  as  if  to  serve  the  Govern- 
ment, and,  when  got  into  a  body,  to  join  us."  This  was  not  an 
honest  scheme,  as  Lord  George,  so  we  have  learned  from  Wodrow, 
gave  himself  out  for  a  repentant  subject,  and  had  been  permitted 
to  return  to  Scotland  many  years  ago.  Distrust  of  Lord  George 
on  the  part  of  Charles  sadly  marred  the  rising  in  1745,  and  Lord 
George's  conduct  at  this  moment  was  not  of  a  kind  to  beget 
confidence.  While  Perth  was  active,  Lovat  feigned  sickness, 
and  could  hardly  be  induced  to  see  Perth's  brother,  Lord  John, 
who,  in  ignorance  of  the  French  attempt,  had  come  over  to 
raise  recruits  for  his  French  regiment.  Murray's  only  informa- 
tion was  derived  from  a  cipher  letter  of  Balhaldy,  addressed  to 
Lady  Traquair,  and  announcing  that  the  French  were  ready  to 
embark.  That  letter  was  sent  through  the  common  post,  and 
given  to  Murray  by  a  friendly  clerk.  Balhaldy  said  nothing  useful, 
nothing  explicit,  but  inquired  anxiously  after  Erskine  of  Grange. 
Genuine  news  reached  Murray  through  Nisbet  of  Dirleton,  and  vague 
warnings  of  arrest  were  conveyed  to  the  Duke  of  Perth  through  his 
tailor.      Perth  fled  to  the  hills,  but  Murray  induced  him  to  return; 


FRENCH  FLEET  FOR  THE  THAMES  (1744).     447 

and  they,  with  Lord  Nairn  (a  Preston  prisoner  in  17  15)  and  Lord 
Strathallan,  did  such  work  of  preparation  in  Perthshire  as  was 
possible.  There  they  remained  till  all  hope  of  invasion  was  ended. 
Lord  Elcho,  son  of  the  fourth  Earl  of  Wemyss  and  of  a  daughter 
of  the  wealthy  debauchee,  Colonel  Charteris  of  Amisfield,  brought 
melancholy  news  from  France.  "The  apparatus  for  invasion  was 
show  only," — an  error,  as  serious  preparations  were  made  under 
Marshal  Saxe.  The  Earl  Marischal  had  neither  money  nor  definite 
orders  for  the  expedition  of  3000  men  to  Scotland,  and  Prince 
Charles,  in  place  of  being  publicly  at  Dunkirk,  was  lurking  secretly 
at  Gravelines,  "  where  no  person  had  access  to  him  but  Balhaldy, 
or  such  as  he  chose."  ''^ 

While  the  Scots  were  thus  left  in  the  dark,  in  January  there 
lay  at  Brest  seven  French  ships  of  the  second  class,  eleven  of 
the  third,  four  of  the  fourth,  five  frigates,  and  many  smaller  vessels. 
But  the  whole  French  navy  was  not  commissioned,  and  to  Norris 
and  the  English  fleet  the  force  would  have  been  "  only  a  break- 
fast." Barry,  the  Jacobite  agent  in  England,  was  more  surprised 
than  pleased.  A  sudden  descent  of  troops  in  fishing -boats  was 
what  his  friends  desired.^^  The  Jacobites  would  not  rise  in 
January,  and  France  adjourned  the  adventure.  Captain  Colin 
thinks  that,  had  the  Jacobites  been  willing  to  rise  in  January,  there 
must  have  been  serious  civil  war  in  England,  if  not  a  Restoration. 
In  fact,  the  English  would  never  have  risen  :  they  were  merely 
copious  in  words.  As  late  as  February  i,  1744,  Louis  was  quite 
undecided  :  the  attempt  was  to  be  indefinitely  postponed.^^ 

It  was  now  that  Balhaldy,  after  a  rapid  visit  to  England,  returned 
and  announced  that  the  attack  should  be  by  way  of  the  Thames, 
with  a  landing  at  Blackwall.  All  the  Jacobite  leaders  would  join 
the  squadron  at  the  Hope,  below  Gravesend — peers  and  aldermen. 
The  Royal  Sovereign  (O'Bryen)  and  the  Princess  Royal  (Lee)  would 
come  over  to  the  French  squadron. ^"^  Pilots  would  be  sent,  and 
their  non-arrival  caused  delay  and  made  success  impossible.  One 
Honeyman  was  sent  to  Dunkirk  to  arrange,  and  was  to  go  to 
Balhaldy,  but  Balhaldy  could  not  be  found  :  he  was  at  Gravelines 
in  secret  with  ('harles.  Honeyman  sneaked  back  to  England. 
Roqueville,  with  the  Brest  squadron,  was  to  cruise  about  the  Isle 
of  Wight.  On  February  2  Saxe  received  his  orders.  Louis  averred 
to  Roqueville  that  England  had  only  nine  or  ten  ships  at  Spithead  : 
the  rest  were  widely  scattered   in   various   ports.      Roqueville  was 


448  DISASTERS   OF   THE   FRENCH   FLEET. 

to  try  to  lure  out  the  Spithead  fleet,  and  to  engage,  destroy,  or 
capture  it  wherever  he  met  it,  so  as  to  leave  an  open  path  for 
the  transports  escorted  by  Barail,  who  (February  lo)  was  to  hasten 
to  Dunkirk,  the  port  of  embarkation.  By  February  26  Saxe  was 
still  awaiting  Barail  and  his  convoy.  The  English  pilots  were 
equally  to  seek ;  and  it  appears  that  Saxe  did  not  know  where 
Prince  Charles  was.'^^ 

The  great  object  was  for  Roqueville  to  engage  the  English 
fleet,  while  Barail  convoyed  the  transports  to  the  embraces  of  peers 
and  common  councilmen  at  Gravesend.  The  invading  force  was 
of  about  10,000  men,^^  and  was  sickening  on  board  the  transports. 
Roqueville  left  Brest  on  February  6,  and  every  day  brought  its 
disaster — ships  collided,  masts  went  by  the  board,  ship  after  ship 
returned  to  Brest  to  refit,  or  to  Havre, — toujours  uti  vent  et  7fier 
affreux.  Finally  the  approach  of  Norris  with  fifty-two  vessels  was 
signalled ;  Roqueville  gave  orders  to  return  to  port ;  a  tempest 
on  March  6  and  7  smote  his  ships  and  scattered  them  with  great 
loss.  The  same  gale  wrecked  several  of  Saxe's  transports  at  their 
moorings ;  neither  he  nor  Charles  was  aboard,  as  Lord  Mahon 
declares  that  they  were;  and,  in  face  of  so  much  loss  and  the 
continued  absence  of  Roqueville  for  more  than  a  week,  the  French 
Government,  about  March  11-13,  bade  Saxe  announce  to  Prince 
Charles  the  abandonment  of  the  enterprise.  They  had  learned 
from  England  and  Holland  that  the  Jacobites  were  a  futile  minority, 
their  reports  of  disaffection  moonshine,  and  their  hearts  as  weak 
as  their  heads.  Henceforth  France  lent  but  dilatory  and  reluctant 
aid  even  to  the  Scottish  Jacobites,  who  were  men  worth  helping. 

England  knew  of  the  French  attempt.  Mr  Thomson,  in  Paris 
(February  25),  had  remonstrated  with  Amelot  on  the  presence  of 
Charles  in  France  as  a  breach  of  treaty.  Amelot  replied  that 
England  had  already  broken  treaty ;  but  France  still  did  not  play 
Charles  openly  as  a  piece  in  their  game.  He  and  Balhaldy  loitered, 
unknown,  at  Gravelines,  while  the  Earl  Marischal  was  at  Dunkirk, 
and  Marshal  Saxe  (February  26)  was  at  Calais,  whence  he  wrote 
to  Amelot.  He  said  that  he  would  already  have  landed  in  England, 
but  Barail's  squadron  was  cruising  vaguely  in  the  Channel,  and 
had  not  joined  that  of  "  Roc(]uefeuille,"  and  thus  Saxe's  transports, 
full  of  soldiers,  had  no  armed  convoy.  "  If  we  fail,  it  is  by  our 
own  fault;"  the  winds  are  already  contrary;  Barail  will  not  easily 
keep   tryst   in  the   unfavourable   weather.     The  promised  English 


CHARLES   IN    RETIREMENT   (1744).  449 

pilots  have  not  arrived, — a  point  on  which  Murray  tells  a  long  con- 
fused story  of  English  indolence  and  careless  stupidity.  Meanwhile 
Marischal,  who  had  left  Paris  on  February  25  for  Dunkirk,  was, 
as  the  Earl  complains  to  d'Argenson,  destitute  of  orders, — "  has  not 
any  sort  of  instructions,"  nor  money  enough  to  pay  the  clan  regi- 
ments which  Charles  commands  him  to  summon.  The  chiefs  had 
engaged,  it  was  said,  to  furnish  about  20,000  men, — a  force  which 
they  never  brought  into  the  field  (Dunkirk,  March  7,  ij^.^)."^^ 

After  the  disasters  to  the  French  fleet  Prince  Charles  lingered  at 
Gravelines,  and  the  Earl  Marischal  warns  him  that  "  to  go  single, 
unless  you  are  invited  by  the  principal  peers,  both  for  credit  and 
good  sense,  would  be  for  ever  the  destruction  of  the  Cause " 
(March  5).  The  Prince  had  thus  already  conceived  his  gallant 
if  desperate  scheme  to  hazard  his  own  person,  "  and  win  or  lose  it 
all."  To  James  (March  6)  he  spoke  lightly  of  "  the  little  difficulties 
and  small  dangers  I  may  have  run."  He  wrote  to  Sempill  that, 
if  he  could  be  of  service,  he  would  venture  to  England  "  in  an  open 
boat."^^  But  France  saw  no  use  in  Charles.  She  had  hazarded 
a  large  force  in  hopes  of  surprising  England  before  making  a 
declaration  of  war.  She  had  merely  lost  men,  ships,  and  supplies ; 
and  even  if  the  winds  had  been  favourable,  and  if  Saxe  had  crossed, 
how  could  he  have  landed  without  pilots  ?  By  April  6  Charles 
was  lurking  disguised  in  Paris,  where  later  he  was  to  hide  in  a 
convent,  after  his  expulsion  from  the  country  in    1749. 

James  (April  3)  bade  him  avoid  precipitate  and  dangerous 
measures,  "  some  rash  or  ill-conceived  project,  which  would  end  in 
your  ruin,  and  that  of  all  those  who  would  join  with  you  in 
it." '^^  James  was  fifty-seven,  Charles  twenty-three;  the  elder  man 
prophesied  as  truly  as  vainly.  He  sent  Sir  Thomas  Sheridan  to 
keep  the  Prince  company,  but  Sheridan,  though  old,  was  a  reckless 
Irishman.  The  Prince  wished  to  take  part  in  the  campaign  of 
1744,  but  the  Earl  Marischal  advised  France  against  this  measure, 
to  the  disgust  of  the  Prince.  By  Balhaldy's  advice  he  admitted 
George  Kelly  to  his  friendship,  a  tall  genial  Irish  Non-Juror,  the 
secretary  of  Atterbury,  in  1720.  George,  we  have  seen,  for  fourteen 
years  had  been  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower ;  he  made  an  ingenious 
escape,  was  with  Ormonde  as  chaplain,  and  now  put  his  audacity 
at  enterprise  at  the  service  of  Charles.  The  affair  of  1745  was 
mainly  due  to  such  Irishmen  as  Kelly,  Sheridan,  Sullivan,  and 
Lally  ToUendal,  who  were  entirely  of  the  Prince's  humour. 

VOL.  IV.  2  F 


450  MURRAY   AND   CHARLES. 

Meanwhile  Charles  was  neglected,  his  pension  was  not  paid. 
While  Barrymore  was  assuring  Charles  of  the  zeal  of  the  English 
(so  the  Prince  writes  to  Louis,  July  24,  1744),'^  the  Scottish  Jacob- 
ites were,  as  usual,  kept  in  the  dark.  Murray  went  to  look  into 
matters.  He  met  Balhaldy  in  Flanders,  and  again  found  him 
suspicious,  and,  he  says,  deceitful.  Murray  (July  1744)  had  an 
interview  with  Charles  at  Paris.  He  learned  that  Balhaldy  and 
Sempill  were  the  persons  who  (as  we  have  heard  from  the  Earl 
Marischal)  had  stated  the  clan  forces  at  20,000,  or  rather  at  19,400 
men.  Murray  knew  the  absurdity  of  this  estimate  :  he  told  Charles 
the  plain  truth,  and  in  this  case  the  corroboration  of  the  Earl  justi- 
fies Murray's  complaints  of  Balhaldy's  sanguine  reportsJ^  Balhaldy 
and  Sempill  were  unabashed  till  Charles  granted  Murray  a  private 
interview  without  their  presence.  They  met  at  the  royal  stables. 
Charles  listened  without  a  single  interruption  to  Murray's  long 
account  of  the  mismanagement  of  Sempill  and  Balhaldy.  He  then 
said  that  he  trusted  them,  though  all  are  liable  to  make  errors. 
Murray  spoke  of  documentary  proof  in  letters,  which  Charles  waived, 
and  then  Murray  argued  that  France  was  unable  to  give  him  the 
aid  which  he  was  asking  from  Louis  on  July  24.  In  Charles's  letter 
to  James  he  speaks  of  a  Scot  of  good  family,  a  relation  of  Balhaldy, 
who  has  been  sent  to  him  with  assurances.  Neither  the  date  nor 
the  kinship  with  Balhaldy  corresponds  to  Murray  and  his  visit, 
which   Murray  dates  in  August. 

If  Charles  does  refer  to  Murray,  that  envoy  made  no  impression 
on  him,  and  he  told  Murray  that  next  summer  he  would  come, 
"though  with  a  single  footman.""'^  Murray  replied  that,  in  such 
an  effort,  he  could  only  depend  on  "  4000  Highlanders,  if  so 
many."  Charles  was  unmoved,  and  though  Murray  repeated  his 
objections  to  Sheridan  next  day,  he  never  seems  to  have  firmly  dis- 
countenanced the  desperate  adventure.  Charles,  however,  became 
convinced  that  Balhaldy  had  deceived  him  in  the  matter  of  a 
purchase  of  arms,  which  he  said  that  he  had  made  in  Flanders 
at  the  time  when  Murray  met  him  there.  Murray,  too,  found  that 
Balhaldy  had  invented  or  exaggerated  some  early  remark  of  his 
against  the  Earl  Marischal ;  and  he  accuses  Balhaldy  of  plundering, 
with  other  Macgregors,  the  baggage  of  the  I'.arl,  and  of  Mar's  army, 
at  Sheriffmuir !  This  charge  against  Rob  Roy's  men  is  familiar 
from  the  old  ballad  on  the  battle.  Murray  also  suspected  Sempill 
and  Balhaldy  of  purloining  an  English  remittance  of  money  for  the 


JAMES   REBUKES   CHARLES.  45  I 

Prince, — in  fact,  nothing  could  be  lower  than  his  estimate  of  two 
men  who  were  entirely  trusted  by  James. ''*  That  unhappy  Prince 
was  teased  and  confused  for  a  whole  year  by  the  reports  and 
counter  -  reports,  charges  and  counter  -  charges,  of  Sempill  and 
Balhaldy  on  one  side,  of  Sheridan  on  the  other.  "  I  am 
plagued  out  of  my  life,"  writes  Charles  (November  i6,  1744).  He 
at  last  told  James  that  he  merely  pretended  to  trust  the  Balhaldy 
faction,  lest  they  might  do  mischief  if  they  thought  themselves 
slighted.  James  replied,  with  his  usual  keen  sense  of  honour,  that 
such  dissimulation  "became  neither  a  Prince  nor  a  Christian." '^^ 

What  could  be  hoped  from  a  party  whose  leaders  were  thus  at 
odds?  From  a  French  Foreign  Office  Memoir  of  December  1744 
it  is  certain  that  the  French  Government  supposed  Murray,  in  July, 
to  have  stayed  in  Holland,  and  to  have  sent  for  Balhaldy  to  meet 
him  there.  "  M.  Macgregoire  [Balhaldy]  learned  from  Mr  Murray 
that  the  gentlemen  of  Scotland  had  armed  their  peasants,  and 
consequently  that  12,000  muskets,  with  swords  and  pistols,  would 
suffice"  as  the  French  contribution.  The  French  Foreign  Office 
probably  repeated  what  Balhaldy  chose  to  tell  them :  at  all  events, 
they  knew  nothing  of  the  real  facts.^  Returned  to  Scotland, 
Murray  denounced  Balhaldy,  who  sent  young  Glengarry  to  de- 
nounce Murray.  The  Laird  of  Broughton  convened  Lochiel, 
Macleod,  Stewart  of  Appin,  and  the  chief  of  the  Macdougals. 
He  reports  that  Macleod  actually  wrote  a  promise,  and  that  "  in 
the  morning,"  to  raise  his  clan  and  join  Charles,  even  if  he  came 
without  a  force.^^  But  Murray  should  have  accepted  no  such 
promise  :  he  should  have  crushed  the  Prince's  wild  design.  As 
to  whether  Macleod  really  put  his  hand  to  the  document,  the 
reader  must  form  his  own  opinion :  Murray  confessedly  speaks 
from  memory  alone.  He  says  that  Appin  (who  did  not  come 
out  in  1745)  also  signed.  Murray  secured  other  adherents,  and 
Traquair  promised  to  visit  Charles  in  France,  but  did  not  go. 
Macdonald  of  Sleat  gave  a  conditional  promise,  to  join  "as  soon 
as  a  proper  plan  was  laid  down  "  :  there  was  never  any  such  plan. 
The  Duke  of  Hamilton,  Perth,  and  Mr  Charteris,  brother  of  Lord 
Elcho,  gave  bills  for  ^1500  each.^'  The  conspirators  now  drew 
up,  late  in  the  year,  a  letter  to  Charles.  Elcho  had  refused  to 
go  over  to  France  in  search  of  definite  information  and  to  impart 
the  same  to  Charles, — a  refusal  which  Murray  regretted,  for  he 
neither  thought   Elcho   "  fickle,"   as   some    of   the   party   did.   nor 


452  CHARLES'S   OWN   ADVENTURE   (1745)- 

cruel,  as  the  Hanoverians  declared.  Hamilton  verbally  promised 
to  join  in  a  rising,  according  to  Murray,  while  Traquair  never  told 
the  managers  whether  or  not  he  had  despatched  an  important 
packet  of  letters  to  Charles. 

It  was  in  these  circumstances  that  Murray  drew  up  a  Memorial 
to  the  Prince,  which  the  leaders  signed.  He  expressed  a  hope 
that  Charles  had  received  the  letters  through  Traquair,  and  said 
that  he  must  bring  a  force  of  at  least  6000  men  :  in  case  the 
English  were  backward,  they  should  land  anywhere  between 
Peterhead  and  Dundee.  Perth,  Elcho,  Lochiel,  Murray,  and 
Nisbet  signed.  This  letter  discouraged  a  solitary  personal  ad- 
venture by  Charles ;  but  no  man  of  position  would  carry  it. 
Murray  was  obliged  to  send  John  Macnaughten,  who  seems  to 
have  been  his  footman  or  valet :  he  is  heard  of  later,  but  was 
not  the  Macnaughten  executed  for  killing  Colonel  Gardiner.  Tra- 
quair at  this  juncture  returned  the  letters,  which  had  never  been 
sent  to  the  Prince  by  him.  Apparently  they  were  dissuasive  of 
the  adventure,  while  Murray  owns  that  Macnaughten's  despatch 
was  only  couched  "  in  general  terms,"  not  explicitly  prohibitory. 
Murray  wrote  again,  by  young  Glengarry ;  again  it  is  plain  that 
he  was  not  explicit,  nor  was  Glengarry  able  to  convey  the  letter 
to  the  Prince.  About  the  end  of  May  1745  Macnaughten  re- 
turned, with  letters  in  which  the  Prince  announced  his  arrival, 
with  no  force,  but  with  some  money  and  arms,  for  July. 

The  Prince  had  for  long,  as  the  Walsh  papers  prove,  been 
scheming  his  expedition  with  Irishmen,  Sheridan,  Kelly,  and  Walsh, 
a  rich  shipowner. ^^  On  June  12,  from  his  cousin's,  the  Due  de 
Bouillon's  place,  Navarre,  near  Evreux,  Charles  congratulated 
Louis  on  the  British  defeat  at  Fontenoy.  "Enfin  je  veux  tenter 
ma  destinee,"  he  writes.^*  Charles,  as  Lady  Cliflbrd  wrote  to  James, 
was  "  in  the  hands  of  people  unknown,  low-born,  of  no  credit  or 
weight,"  and  the  Earl  Marischal  had  been  "  banished  "  to  Avignon. 
On  the  same  day  as  he  wrote  to  Louis  XV.  about  "  trying  his 
destiny"  (June  12),  Charles  wrote  to  James.  He  says  that  he 
will  "  conquer  or  die,"  and  asks  that  his  Sobieski  jewels,  famous 
rubies,  may  be  pawned  to  raise  funds.  He  has  borrowed  180,000 
livres  from  his  bankers,  Messrs  Waters.  To  Edgar  he  writes  that 
he  has  arms,  Routledge's  ship  the  Elizabeth  (68  guns),  and  Walsh's 
frigate    La   Doutelle  (or  Du   Te/lier,   44  guns).      He  will   land   on 


MURRAY  THE  CHIEF  CAUSE.  453 

or  near  Mull.     The  French  Court  knows  nothing,  though  the  letter 
to  Louis  XV.  told  a  good  deal.^^ 

Murray  was  dismayed  :  he  had  never  actually  refused  his  consent 
to  the  adventure,  and  his  latest  messenger,  young  Glengarry,  had 
failed  to  find  the  Prince.  Sir  Hector  Maclean,  who  had  arrived 
from  France,  was  arrested  in  Scotland, — a  discouragement  to  Clan 
Gilzean.  Even  now  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  accepted  James's 
commission,  of  which  he  made  no  use.  The  month  seems  to 
have  been  June  :  after  making  many  arrangements  Murray  visited 
Lochiel  at  Achnacarry.  He  found  Lochiel  disappointed,  but  true 
to  his  honour  :  "  he  did  not  see  how  any  man  of  honour  could 
get  off,  .  .  .  especially  as  the  Prince  was  to  throw  himself  naked 
into  their  arms."^*"  The  Rising,  as  far  as  the  clans  were  concerned, 
was  for  honour's  sake.  Lovat,  on  the  contrary,  said  that  Charles 
should  not  be  allowed  to  land.  Macleod  thought  that  he  should 
be  dissuaded  by  letter,  but  Lochiel  could  not  believe  that  Lovat 
was  in  earnest :  now  was  his  chance  to  save  his  honour.  Murray 
travelled  through  the  western  clans ;  Macleod  would  not  meet 
him,  nor  could  Murray  go  to  Skye,  but  Macleod  still  professed  his 
readiness.  At  this  moment  Cluny  had  accepted  a  commission  in 
Loudoun's  Highland  regiment :  Murray  met  him  in  Badenoch,  and 
probably  shook  his  scruples ;  but  here  Murray's  account  of  his 
negotiations  breaks  off  at  an  interesting  point.  We  do  not  know 
how  he  fared  with  old  Glengarry,  who  had  not  been  formally 
apprised  of  the  intrigues. 

If  Balhaldy  had  been  over -sanguine  and  less  than  veracious, 
if  Traquair  had  been  culpably  languid,  yet  Murray's  own  apology 
makes  it  plain  that  he  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  desperate  and 
ruinous  adventure.  He  had  encouraged  and  accepted  promises 
from  the  chiefs  to  join  Charles  even  if  he  came  alone.  He  had 
never  explicitly  refused  to  be  associated  in  an  enterprise  of  which 
he  had  timely  warning.  In  the  end,  the  author  and  manager 
was  the  betrayer  of  the  wild  endeavour.  Of  trusty  men,  hardy 
and  resolute  soldiers,  Charles  had  probably  not  more  than  2000 
at  the  first  —  Lochiel's  Camerons,  the  Macdonells  of  Glengarry, 
Keppoch,  Clanranald,  and  the  Appin  Stewarts.  Sleat's  Mac- 
donalds  were  held  back  by  their  chief;  the  delays  of  Lovat 
paralysed  the  Frasers ;  the  chief  of  the  Mackintoshes  was  of  the 
party  of  Government;  the  Macleans  had  lost  their  chief;   Cluny, 


454  NOTES. 

with  the  Macphersons,  was  trammelled  by  his  commission  ;  Sea- 
forth  would  not  bring  out  the  Mackenzies ;  the  Munroes  and 
Mackays  were  steady  Whigs ;  and  Macleod  deserted  the  Cause. 
The  gentry  of  the  South  were  powerless  :  they  had  no  "  foUow- 
ings."     Yet  the  Prince  shook  the  throne. 


NOTES   TO   CHAPTER   XVII. 

1  Memoir  of  Bishop  Atterbury,  ii.  208. 

-  Rome,  November  5,  1725  :  Memoir  of  Bishop  Atterbury,  ii.  2II. 

*  >remoir  of  Bishop  Atterbury,  ii.  218-220. 
•*  ^lahon,  ii.,  Appendix,  p.  xxx. 

*  Mahon,  ii.,  Appendix,  pp.  xxxi-xxxiii. 
'  Mahon,  ii.,  Appendix,  p.  xxx  v. 

'  Memoir  of  Bishop  Atterbury,  ii.  458-465. 

"  There  is  a  confusing  statement  about  the  Sempills  in  '  Memoir  of  Atterbury,' 
ii.  359,  note.  The  "  Hugh,  Lord  Sempill,"  who  succeeded  in  1716  is  a  Hanoverian, 
and  is  not  the  Jacobite  Lord  Sempill  whose  son  is  accused  of  being  a  spy.  The 
lacobite,  Robert  Sempill,  was  a  captain  in  Dillon's  regiment,  and  after  1723  was 
created  a  peer  of  Scotland  by  James.  Riddell  could  nut  discover  the  paientage 
and  pedigree  of  this  Lord  Sempill,  nor  could  Mr  Fitzroy  Bell  (Murray  of  Broughton's 
'  Memorials,'  p.  42,  note  2,  Scottish  History  Society).  The  Hanoverian  Lord 
Sempill,  who  is  confused  with  the  Jacobite  Lord  Sempill,  was,  in  the  male  line, 
an  Abercromby.  It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  a  very  futile  spy  of  Walpole's  is, 
as  Mr  Folkestone  Williams  supposes,  the  Jacobite  Master  of  Sempill. 

'  These  Letters  are  cited  from  the  '  Stuart  Papers '  at  Windsor  Castle. 

J"  This  family  of  Stafford,  I  think,  was  connected  with  the  Statforl-Northcotes. 
The  Earl  of  Iddesleigh  has  a  fine  portrait  of  King  James. 

'^  Documentos  Ineditos,  xciii.  18. 

1-  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  x..  Appendix  L,  p.  184. 

'■•  Burton's  Lovat  and  Duncan  Forbes,  pp.  201-205. 

'*  Slate  Trials,  xviii.  588,  589. 

"*  Autobiography  of  Dr  Carlyle,  pp.  33-35  ;  State  Trials,  xvii.  925. 

"^  Autobiography  of  Dr  Carlyle,  pp.  36,  37. 

'^  State  Trials,  xvii.  929,  930. 

'•  State  Trials,  xvii.  945. 

"•  State  Trials,  xvii.  949. 

•*  .State  Trials,  xvii.  0S2. 

■-^  Autobiography  of  1  )r  Carlyle,  p.  39. 

'■'^  Parliamentary  Histor>',  x,  191-194,  notes;  Letters  from  Coxe's  'Memoirs 
of  Sir  Robert  Walpole.' 

-'  Parliamentary  History,  x.  195. 

^  Note  to  'Tiie  Heart  of  Mid-Lolliian,'  i.  chap.  vii. 

■•'''  Parliamentary  History,  x.  2jS. 


NOTES.  455 

'*  I'arliamenlary  History,  x.  246. 

■•^  Parliamentary  History,  x.  252. 

'^  Autobiography  of  Dr  Carlyle,  pp.  40,  41. 

'•"  Examination  of  John  Murray,  February  14,  1746-47,  in  *  Memorials  of  John 
Murray,'  Fitzroy  Bell,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.  480. 

*"  Mahon,  iii.  26, 

*^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  Fitzroy  Bell,  Scottish  History  Society,  pp.  i  6. 

'•'^  Burton's  Lovat  and  Duncan  Forbes,  pp.  368,  369. 

^  Journal  and  Letters  of  Lady  Mary  Coke,  i.  pp.  xi-xii ;  Stuart  Papers,  MS., 
June  15,  1740. 

'■*  Mahon,  iii.,  Appendix,  pp.  1,  li. 

•''•''  Hist.  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  270-273. 

»«  Hist.  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  358-360. 

^  Hist.  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  360. 

*8  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites.     Par  F.  Colin.     Chapelot.     Paris,  1 901. 

'"  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  10. 

*>  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  31. 

*^  Cited  by  Ewald,  in  his  '  Prince  Charles  Edward.' 

"^  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  par  F.  Colin,  p.  viii. 

^  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  182. 

•"  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  pp.  15-17- 

*5  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  31. 

•*^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  30,  31,  note  I  ;  Mackenzie's  History  of  the 
Macdonalds,  p.  234. 

*''  Stuart  Papers,  in  Browne's  '  Highland  Clans,'  ii.  446-44S. 

■**  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.^46. 

*■'  History  of  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  360,  361. 

^^  Mernbrials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  54-56. 

'^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  57,  note. 

"••2  Stuart  MSS. 

^''  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  vii. 

"  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  pp.  62,  63. 

^^'  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  35, 

**"'  History  of  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  361. 

"  History  of  Clan  Gregor,  ii.  361. 

5'  James  to  Louis  XV.,  December  22,  1743 ;  Memorials  of  John  Murray, 
Appendix,  pp.  492-495. 

■^'  Pichot,  Charles  Edouard,  i.  403-407. 

'''*  There  are  several  accounts:  "An  Authentick  Account  of  the  Intended  In- 
vasion by  the  Chevalier's  Son,"  1744  ;  the  version  of  Walton,  the  English  agent  at 
Rome,  January  28  (Record  Office) ;  and  "  Secret  Intelligence,"  January  25,  1744, 
in  Mahon,  iii.  Iviii,     There  are  also  contemporary  letters  in  the  Stuart  MSS. 

«i  Lord  Elcho's  Memoirs  are  quoted  by  Mr  Ewald,  in  his  '  Life  of  Prince 
Charles.' 

«■-  Stuart  MSS. 

^  Mahon,  iii.  173,  note  3. 

^  Villeneuve  to  Amelot,  February  i,  1744  ;  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  497, 

•5  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  498. 

^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  66-69. 

*''  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  35. 

"*  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  52. 


456  NOTES. 

'"  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  57. 

'"  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  498,  499,  Appendix. 

^  Louis  XV  et  les  Jacobites,  p.  79. 

"^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  Appendix,  pp,  498-500. 

^^  Stuart  Papers  ;  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  501. 

^*  Stuart  MSS. 

^'  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  501-503. 

^^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  90. 

^^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  93. 

"*  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  jip.  94-103. 

"  Stuart  MSS. 

^^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  504. 

*^   Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  108-IIO. 

*^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  p.  121. 

^  A  Royalist  Family  :  1904. 

**  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  Appendix,  p.  507. 

8»  Stuart  MSS. 

^  Memorials  of  John  Murray,  pp.  142,  143. 


457 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE     RISING     OF     1745. 

The  adventure  which  Charles  was  now  achieving  had  been  schemed 
by  James  for  himself,  after  the  failure  of  the  French  invasion  of 
1708,  In  many  ways  the  plan  which  looked  so  reckless  was  the 
best  that  could  be  devised.  If  Charles  landed  in  the  territory  of 
the  loyal  clans,  and  if  they  rose,  as  they  would  do  rather  than  desert 
the  Prince  who  threw  himself  on  their  chivalry,  the  nucleus  of  an 
army  was  provided.  Under  Montrose  and  Dundee  the  Highlanders 
had  shown  what  they  could  do  both  against  the  Lowland  Militia 
and  regular  forces.  Scotland  was  at  this  moment  almost  denuded 
of  regular  forces  :  the  army  was  engaged  abroad.  If  Murray  had 
organised  the  Lowland  gentry,  they  could  provide  a  small  cavalry 
contingent  at  least ;  and  Charles,  whose  main  object  was  to  force 
the  hand  of  France,  reckoned  that  a  French  army  would  be 
despatched  to  his  assistance.  The  exiled  Stuarts,  deceived  by 
sanguine  reports  and  loyal  messages,  never  knew  how  weak  and 
timid  were  the  Jacobites  of  England.  That  country,  as  much 
evidence  shows,  was  mainly  indifferent.  There  was  little  enthusiasm 
for  a  Restoration ;  there  was  not  much  more  for  the  House  of 
Hanover,  which  wasted  the  wealth  of  the  country  in  foreign  wars, 
as  the  party  of  the  Squires  viewed  the  matter. 

It  was  on  July  2  that  the  Prince  embarked  at  Nantes  on  board 
the  Dutillet^  or  I.a  Douielie,  as  the  ship  is  commonly  called.  The 
moving  spirits  were  his  Irish  friends,  Sheridan,  Kelly,  and  Sullivan, 
who  became  Quartermaster-General,  and  was  ever  on  bad  terms 
with  the  General,  Lord  George  Murray.  Sullivan,  it  is  said,  had 
been  bred  for  the  priesthood,  had  rejected  the  gown  for  the  sword, 
had  fought  in  Corsica,  in  Italy,  and  on  the  Rhine,  and  was  believed 
to  be  skilled  in  irregular  warfare.^     In  his  Memoirs  Lord  George 


458  THE   PRINCE   LANDS    (1745). 

Murray  expresses  a  very  low  opinion  of  Sullivan  :  the  Irish  and 
Scots  were  always  at  odds,  with  fatal  results.  The  rest  of  the 
"  Seven  Men  of  Moidart "  were  an  old  and  convivial  Sir  John 
Macdonald  ;  a  man  Buchanan ;  .^neas  Macdonald  of  the  Kinloch- 
moidart  family,  a  banker  in  Paris,  and,  later,  an  untrustworthy 
evidence  against  his  companions  ;  with  Strickland,  whom  James 
greatly  distrusted  as  of  evil  influence  on  the  Prince,^  and  TuUi- 
bardine,  the  disinherited  Duke  of  Atholl,  who  was  out  in  17 19. 
Anthony  Welch  or  Walsh,  the  owner  of  La  Doutelle,  did  not  remain 
long  in  Scotland. 

On  July  13  the  Doutelle  was  joined  by  the  Elizabeth,  fitted  out 
by  Rutledge,  or  Routledge,  a  Dunkirker.  On  July  15  they  set  sail 
for  Scotland.  On  July  20  the  Elizabeth  fought,  west  of  the  Lizard, 
the  Lion  (Captain  Brett).  According  to  Durbe,  captain  of  La 
Doutelle,  his  guns  were  so  outclassed  that,  with  his  sails  in  tatters 
from  the  English  fire,  he  could  not  take  part  in  the  fight,  but  meant 
to  join  in  if  the  crew  of  the  Elizabeth  boarded  the  Lio7i.  Both 
warships  were  severely  damaged  and  lost  many  men.  The  captain 
of  the  French  vessel,  Monsieur  d'O,  was  severely  wounded  by  the 
last  shot  of  the  Lion?  The  Elizabeth  put  back  to  harbour,  but  La 
Doutelle  held  on,  sighted  Bernera  on  July  22— August  2,  and  on  the 
following  day  Charles  first  set  foot  on  British  soil,  landing  at  Eriskay. 
He  was  dressed  as  a  young  minister,  and  slept  in  a  smoky  hut. 
Charles  sent  for  Clanranald's  brother,  Macdonald  of  Boisdale,  in 
South  Uist,  who  advised  him  to  go  home.  "  I  am  come  home,"  said 
the  Prince,  and  though  Boisdale  had  no  hope  in  Macdonald  of 
Sleat  and  in  Macleod,  he  sent  messages  to  them.  Macleod  at  once 
warned  (August  3)  Forbes  of  Culloden,  saying  that  it  was  "  need- 
less to  mention  "  himself  and  Sleat  as  the  sources  of  information.* 
Young  Clanranald  had  been  with  them,  and  had  given  assurances  of 
his  prudence. 

Not  awaiting  replies  from  Macleod  and  Sk-at,  Charles  sailed 
to  Lochnanuagh  in  Arisaig,  and  landed  at  Borradale  (July  25— 
August  5),  going  to  the  farmhouse  of  a  Macdonald.  Here  Mac- 
donald of  Kinlochmoidart  joined  him,  and  was  sent  to  summon 
Murray  of  Broughton,  Lochiel,  and  the  Duke  of  Perth.  Young 
Clanranald  evinced  his  prudence  by  visiting  the  Prince  on  ship- 
board, with  Glcnuladale  and  Morar,  who  has  left  an  account  of  the 
campaign,  publislicd  in  the  '  Lockhart  Pa{)ers.'  Clanranald  and 
another  Macdonald  were  sent  to  Sleat  and  Macleod.     Glengarry's 


THE   FIRST   RECRUITS.  459 

men  were  represented  by  Scothouse,  and  he,  with  Keppoch  and 
Glencoe,  are  said  to  have  urged  the  Prince  to  retire  to  P'rance. 
Clanranald,  finding  Sleat  and  Macdonald  obdurate,  was  also  for 
retiral,  but,  according  to  Home,  young  Ranald  Macdonald,  brother 
of  Kinlochmoidart,  turned  their  hearts.  "WiW  you  not  aid  me?" 
said  Charles.  "  I  will,  though  no  other  man  in  the  Highlands 
should  draw  his  sword."  "  The  heather  was  ablaze  "  at  this  word, 
and  the  die  was  cast.  This  must  have  been  as  early  as  August  4, 
O.S.,  when  Charles  from  Lochaylort  wrote  to  James,  "  I  am  joined 
here  of  brave  people,  as  I  expected "  :  he  has  not,  however,  yet 
set  up  the  standard.  He  is  prepared  "to  dye  at  the  head  of 
such  brave  people  as  I  find  here."  "The  French  must  take  off 
the  maske  or  have  an  Eternal  sheme  upon  them  ;  .  .  .  and  wee, 
whatever  happens,  will  gain  an  immortal  honour  by  doing  what  wee 
can  to  deliver  our  country,  in  restoring  our  Master,  or  perish  Sord 
in  hand."  ^ 

The  spirit  which  the  Prince  displays  in  this  letter  came  home  to 
the  hearts  of  the  Macdonalds.  James  (August  11)  wrote  to 
Marischal  that  the  sentiments  of  the  Prince  "will  always  do  him 
honour,"  but  adds  that  he  would  never  have  advised  the  enterprise. 
Murray  represents  Lochiel  as  coming  in  without  hesitation.  Other 
authorities  say  that  he  sent  his  brother,  Dr  Archibald  Cameron,  to 
dissuade  Charles,  and  that  he  did  not  come  in  till  he  received 
security  for  the  full  value  of  his  estate.  This  is  a  moot -point.** 
In  any  case  Lochiel  raised  his  clan,  as  Glengarry  raised  his,  under 
his  brave  and  unfortunate  second  son  Angus,  a  lad  of  nineteen, 
already  married,  and  a  father. 

On  August  I  the  British  Government  disgraced  itself  by  placing 
a  reward  of  ^30,000  on  the  head  of  Charles, — a  direct  encourage- 
ment of  murder.  The  Prince,  before  hearing  of  a  measure  which 
he  despised,  sent  away  (August  8/19)  Walsh  with  La  Doutelle^ 
cutting  off  his  own  retreat.  It  was  not  till  August  19,  O.S.,  that 
Charles  raised  the  standard  at  Glenfinnan,  where  his  monument 
now  stands,  at  the  head  of  Loch  Shiel,  and  in  the  centre  of  noble 
mountain  scenery.  Before  that  date  Government  had  begun  to 
move.  They  had  captured  Sir  Hector  Maclean  in  June,  and  from 
information  in  a  letter  of  Murray's  found  in  his  possession,  they 
endeavoured  to  take  the  Duke  of  Perth.  Campbell  of  Inverawe, 
commanding  a  company  at  a  village  near  Drummond  Castle,  con- 
trived a  very  unchivalrous  ruse^  which  the  Duke  escaped  ingeniously 


46o  COPE'S   PREPARATIONS. 

by  means  of  an  unguarded  staircase  communicating  with  his  dressing- 
room.  While  lurking  he  heard  the  news  of  Charles's  arrival  through 
a  messenger  sent  by  Kinlochmoidart :  Murray,  too,  was  warned,  made 
hasty  preparations,  and  laid  a  scheme  to  blind  the  Lord  Advocate. 
He  sent  for  Rob  Roy's  son,  James  Mor  Macgregor,  who,  as  he 
knew,  was  ///  with  General  Cope  and  the  Advocate.  He  found 
James  "far  from  being  unsusceptible  of  flattery"  and  "regardless 
of  his  private  interests." 

James  was  induced  to  pretend  to  betray  the  news  that  young 
Glengarry  had  landed  at  Arisaig  with  letters  from  Charles,  who 
was  in  hiding  at  St  Omer,  and  was  then  to  ask  for  men  from 
the  Highland  forts  to  seize  Lochiel  and  Glengarry.  The  forts 
being  thus  weakened,  they  might  be  taken  by  his  clan.  While 
James  did  what  he  could  to  deceive  Government,  Murray  hastened 
to  Lochiel's  house  of  Achnacarry,  and  became  Charles's  secretary 
and  organiser.^  According  to  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell,  Murray  at 
first  advised  the  Prince  to  return  to  France,  as  he  had  come 
without  forces.  Sheridan  replied  that  the  Prince  had  come  on 
Murray's  encouragement,  and  that  in  honour  he  was  bound  to  join 
the  Rising.  He  therefore  came,  having  at  this  time  some  notion 
of  honour.  Here  we  must  remark  that  Maxwell  is  one  of  our  best 
authorities  for  the  expedition.  He  wrote  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  events,  and  he  wrote  lucidly,  impartially,  and  without  prejudice, 
except  where  Murray  of  Broughton  is  concerned.  Though  not  a 
member  of  the  Council,  he  had  good  information.  His  modesty 
did  not  allow  him  to  speak  of  himself;  he  was  not  the  Mr 
Maxwell  who  escaped  with  a  companion  from  Carlisle  just  before 
the  surrender.^ 

Sir  John  Cope  commanding  in  Scotland,  at  the  head  of  some 
2500  or  3000  men,  scattered  all  about  the  country,  was  meanwhile 
by  no  means  indolent.  But  he  was  trammelled  by  the  natural 
dislike  between  Islay  (now  Duke  of  Argyll)  and  Tweeddale,  Secre- 
tary of  State.  Cope  had  always  to  consult  these  authorities  and 
Forbes  of  Culloden,  who  sped  to  Inverness  on  August  13,  to  rally 
the  Whig  clans.  The  other  chief  officers  of  justice  were  also  to  be 
consulted  ;  yet  as  early  as  July  9,  on  information  received.  Cope 
was  concentrating  his  scattered  forces.  He  was  at  first  reckoned 
an  idle  alarmist,  and  his  requests  for  artillery  were  little  heeded. 
Argyll,  without  orders  from  Government,  could  not  arm  the 
Campbells,  and   the  Whig   clans   had   obeyed   the  orders   for  dis- 


THE   STANDARD   IS    RAISED.  461 

armament.  On  August  8  Cope  began  to  concentrate  and  collect 
stores  at  Stirling.* 

Presently  the  first  shot  was  fired.  On  August  16  a  band  of 
Keppoch  and  Glengarry  men  ambushed  and  captured,  between 
Spean  Bridge  and  Loch  Lochy,  two  companies  of  Royal  Scots,  and 
Murray  came  athwart  the  skirmish  as  he  rode  to  Achnacarry.  He 
saw  that  the  regulars  marched,  without  an  advanced  guard,  "  in  a 
confused  heap  "  till  they  were  met ;  and  they  ran  some  twelve  miles, 
he  declares,  before  they  were  taken.  ^"^  Cope  had  marched  to  Crieff, 
where  old  Glengarry  and  Lord  George  Murray  met  him  as  friends 
and  allies.  Atholl,  too,  appeared,  and  then  set  out  for  England, 
leaving  his  brother,  the  exiled  Tullibardine,  to  "  play  his  personage  " 
among  the  Atholl  clans.  Cope,  who  wished  to  enlist  them,  had 
no  pay  to  give  them.  He  went  north  and  met  a  Captain  Swetten- 
ham,  a  prisoner  of  the  Macdonalds,  released  by  them,  and  heard 
from  the  captain  that  Charles  had  twenty  swivel  guns.  The  effect 
of  this  information  will  appear  later ;  meanwhile,  two  or  three  days 
before  Cope  marched  north  from  Crieff,  Tullibardine  (August  19,. 
O.S.)  raised  the  standard  at  Glenfinnan.  Some  1200  were  gathered 
— Macdonalds  and  700  Camerons — in  this  beautiful  spot,  watched 
by  the  proud  crests  of  hills  which  are  the  Prince's  monument.  On 
August  21  or  22  Charles,  at  Kinlochiel,  heard  that  Cope  was  about 
to  march  to  encounter  him,  making  for  Fort  Augustus.  Charles 
therefore  summoned  Glencoe,  Glengarry,  and  the  Appin  Stewarts, 
and  himself  reached  Invergarry  on  August  26.  Here,  says  Murray, 
Lovat  sent  an  envoy  to  obtain  his  commissions,  "with  apologies 
for  his  men  not  being  in  readiness,"  ^^  and  asked  for  a  warrant 
to  seize  Forbes  of  Culloden,  dead  or  alive.  At  the  same  time 
(August  23)  Lovat  wrote  to  Forbes  denouncing  "the  madmen  with 
the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales,"  and  demanding  arms  to  be  used 
against  them.  On  August  24  he  said  that  he  was  trying  to  induce 
Fraser  of  Gortuleg  to  meet  the  clans,  and  induce  them  to  spare 
his  property.  Now  it  was  Gortuleg  who  carried  Lovat's  request 
for  his  commissions,  and  for  a  warrant  to  seize  or  slay  Forbes  !  ^- 

There  is  a  touch  of  insanity  in  the  cunning  of  Lovat.  His 
emissary,  Gortuleg,  wrote  to  Forbes  (August  29),  with  the  news 
that  on  the  previous  day  the  Highlanders  had  marched  to  a  place 
four  miles  from  Fort  Augustus,  at  the  foot  of  the  Pass  of  Corry- 
arrick,  and  that  they  expected  Cope  to  move  by  Ruthven  to 
Inverness.     The  Prince  "  called  for  his   Highland  clothes,  and,  at 


462  COPE  EVADES  CHARLES. 

tying  the  latchets  of  his  shoes,  he  solemnly  declared  that  he  would 
be  up  with  Mr  Cope  before  they  were  unloosed."  Gortuleg  stated 
the  Highland  numbers  at  2030  :  all  were  Macdonalds  except  700 
Camerons  and  220  Stewarts  of  Appin.^^  This  little  force  was  the 
steel  point  of  the  Prince's  army  :  later  recruits  were  of  lower  value, 
but,  as  yet,  there  was  no  leader  of  genius.  On  August  28  the  clans 
ascended  the  Corryarrick  Pass  and  occupied  the  crest.  From 
Gortuleg's  letter  it  would  seem  that  Charles  knew  Cope's  intention 
not  to  attempt  the  Pass,  for  Cope  had  heard  from  Captain  Swetten- 
ham  that  it  would  be  lined  with  the  famous  twenty-four  swivel  guns, 
and  feared  to  face  them.  The  clans,  in  fact,  buried  the  greater 
part  of  the  guns  as  useless  impedimenta.  If  Gortuleg  spoke  truth, 
Charles  must  have  expected  to  pursue  Cope,  not  to  fight  him  in  the 
Pass,  as  Murray  says  was  his  intention.^''  According  to  Murray, 
deserters  from  Cope  told  Charles,  to  his  chagrin,  that  he  had  set 
off  for  Ruthven,  where  there  was  a  fort,  en  route  for  Inverness. 

The  clans,  hearing  that  Cope  was  weak  and  his  alluring  baggage 
great,  were  for  pursuing  him.  Charles  consulted  the  map,  and 
calculated  that  he  could  not  overtake  Cope  before  he  reached 
Inverness;  and  a  plan  for  sending  500  fleet  men  by  a  mountain 
way  to  detain  him  till  the  rest  came  up  by  Wade's  road  was  con- 
sidered and  rejected.  The  five  hundred  were  likely  to  force  on  an 
unequal  fight  before  the  main  body  could  appear,  while  the  first 
fruits  of  Lovat's  calculated  delays  were  that  the  local  Farquharsons 
and  Mackintoshes  waited  his  word  and  held  aloof.  Had  Lovat 
been  daring,  they  would  now  have  risen,  and  Cope  would  have  been 
surrounded  and  destroyed.  The  result  would  have  been  the  march 
of  the  whole  of  the  North  on  Edinburgh,  and  the  consequence 
might  have  been  fateful. ^^  Murray  and  others  have  criticised  Cope 
severely  for  not  occupying  the  plain  near  Dalwhinnie.  But  he  had 
a  choice  of  difiiculties ;  and  if  on  one  hand  he  allowed  the  clans 
to  capture  Cluny  and  obtain  the  alliance  of  the  Macphersons,  on 
the  other  his  cause  was  victorious  at  Ruthven,  where  a  gallant 
Irish  sergeant,  Molloy,  with  twelve  privates,  gave  "  bloody  noses," 
as  he  wrote,  to  a  small  party  of  assailants  under  Sullivan  and  Dr 
Cameron.^'' 

On  August  29  Cope  reached  Inverness,  where  he  could  keep 
•down  the  Frasers  if  they  attempted  anything,  and  on  the  30th 
Charles,  from  Dalnacardoch,  commanded  Strath  Tay,  Blair  Atholl, 
and  the  unoccupied  Pass  of  Killiecrankie.     From  the  31st  August  to 


LORD   GEORGE   MURRAY   JOINS   CHARLES.  463 

September  2  Charles  was  in  pleasant  quarters  at  Blair,  where  "Tulli- 
bardine,  the  exiled,  the  dear,"  was  warmly  welcomed  by  his  clan, 
while  the  Prince  led  a  dance  at  Lude,  and  for  the  first  time  partook 
of  pine-apples,  a  fact  that  interested  Horace  Walpole.  The  Mac- 
gregors,  meanwhile,  were  taking  the  little  fort  and  garrison  of  Inver- 
snaid,  and  George  II.  arrived  in  London  from  his  dear  Hanover, 
In  London,  on  Stair's  proposal,  it  was  decided  to  enregiment  the 
Whig  clans.  Blank  commissions  and  a  promise  to  repay  his  expend- 
iture of  money  were  sent  to  Forbes. ^'^  How  the  promise  was  kept 
by  the  Government  is  too  well  known.  A  memorial  of  Stair's  proves 
that  the  English  forces  were  scanty,  and  that  he  expected  too  much 
from  the  useless  old  walls  of  Edinburgh,  and  from  a  thousand  volun- 
teers who  were  not  forthcoming.^*^  Stair  thought  that  Cope  had 
made  a  mistake  in  going  north,  and  that  he  had  better  retrace  his 
steps  for  the  defence  of  the  capital. 

Leaving  Blair,  Charles  halted  at  Dunkeld,  was  in  Perth  on  Sep- 
tember 4-10,  and  was  there  joined  by  the  Duke  of  Perth,  Lord 
George  Murray  (whose  previous  dealings  with  Cope  caused  a  sus- 
picion never  allayed),  Lord  Ogilvy,  Lord  Strathallan,  Oliphant  of 
Gask,  and  others.  Two  hundred  of  the  Robertsons  of  Struan  came 
in.  Cluny  went  north  to  raise  Clan  Vourich  ;  and  from  the  Prince's 
cousin,  Louis  de  Bouillon,  and  the  Prince  of  Campo  Florida,  came 
most  flourishing  assurances  of  help  from  France  and  Spain. ''^  It 
seems  that  these  letters  were  circulated  to  encourage  the  friends  of 
la  bonne  cause  (as  Mr  Blaikie  remarks).  Several  copies  exist.^'* 
But  France  was  doing  nothing.  They  paid  no  heed  to  a  Memoire 
of  August  20  from  the  Earl  Marischal,  nor  to  the  one-eyed  slovenly 
Lord  Clancarty,  who,  as  usual,  could  produce  no  written  assurances 
from  the  useless  Jacobites  of  England.-^  Meanwhile  Cope  occupied 
September  4-1 1  in  marching  from  Inverness  to  Aberdeen  to  take 
ship  for  Edinburgh.  We  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  Prince  from  in- 
formation sent  by  Cope.  He  "  is  in  a  fine  Highland  dress  laced 
with  gold ;  wears  a  bonnet  laced ;  wears  a  broadsword ;  had  a 
green  ribband  [Order  of  the  Thistle]:  a  well-made  man,  taller 
than  any  of  his  company."  ^^  The  unsuspicious  Forbes  was  offering 
Lovat  commissions  for  officers  in  a  Whig  regiment  (September  19), 
while  he  let  the  shifty  chief  know  that  he  had  heard  "  silly  stories  " 
that  his  plans  were  Jacobite.  Lovat  kept  contradicting  the  allega- 
tions, but  appears  to  say  nothing  about  the  commissions. 

The  conduct  of  Lord  George  Murray  had  not  been  much  more 


464  CHARLES   CROSSES   THE   FORTH. 

straightforward.  It  was  unworthy  of  this  brave  and,  in  all  other 
respects,  honourable  man,  to  occupy  the  post  of  Sheriff- Depute 
under  Government;  to  visit  Cope  on  August  21,  with  old  Glen- 
garry; to  "pooh-pooh  the  Rising"  in  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Advocate, 
after  his  visit  to  Cope ;  and  then  to  accept,  with  the  Duke  of  Perth, 
the  rank  of  Jacobite  Lieutenant-General.^^  Lord  Elcho,  who  joined 
Charles  near  Edinburgh,  had  known  the  Prince  in  Rome.  In  his 
Memoirs  he  says  that  Charles  informed  him  that  he  knew  Lord 
George  joined  him  merely  to  betray  him,  and  that  two  Irish  ofiScers 
were  to  watch  Lord  George,  and  slay  him  if  he  showed  treachery. 
(Extracts  from  Lord  Elcho's  unpublished  Memoirs  are  given  by 
Mr  Ewald  in  his  '  Life  of  Prince  Charles.')  Again  Henderson,  in 
his  contemporary  '  History  of  the  Rebellion,'  says  that  Lord 
George's  brother,  TuUibardine,  "  signified  his  distrust "  when  he 
came  in  at  Perth.  Certainly  Lord  George's  behaviour  suggested  sus- 
picion; but  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell  speaks  of  Murray  of  Broughton  as 
"  beginning  by  representing  Lord  George  as  a  traitor  to  the  Prince  " 
from  mere  jealousy,  and  Lord  George  "  soon  came  to  know  the  sus- 
picion the  Prince  had  of  him."  ^^  Nothing  in  Murray's  '  Memorials ' 
suggests  anything  corroborative  of  Maxwell's  statement  about  him.^^ 

Lord  George  was  passionate  and  outspoken ;  there  never  was 
complete  trust  between  him  and  Charles ;  but  the  original  fault  was 
his  own  "policy"  of  affecting  to  be  friendly  to  Government.  He 
despised  Sullivan,  and  the  Irish  with  the  Prince  distrusted  all  the 
Scots,  while  they  had  the  ear  of  Charles.  These  facts  were  ruinous 
to  the  Cause.  Later,  the  army  believed  that  when  a  Highlander 
broke  the  stick  of  a  stranger  in  a  quarrel,  there  was  found  in  the 
stick  a  letter  from  AthoU  advising  his  brother.  Lord  George,  to 
desert  with  the  AthoU  men.  Now  AthoU's  factor,  Bissat,  was  wont 
to  send  secret  intelligence  rolled  up  beneath  the  leather  of  a  whip 
handle. ^^  The  coincidence  is  curious.  Lord  George,  once  en- 
gaged, was,  in  fact,  absolutely  loyal,  though  perhaps  once  or  twice 
mistaken  in  his  strategy. 

On  September  i  2  Cope  set  sail  from  Aberdeen,  and  Charles,  on 
the  following  day,  mastered  "  Forth,  that  bridles  the  wild  Highland- 
man,"  by  crossing  at  the  difficult  fords  of  Frew,  near  Arnprior,  the 
house  of  an  adherent,  Buchanan.  In  crossing  Forth  the  Prince 
did  what  Mar  never  achieved  in  171 5.  Meanwhile  Colonel 
Gardiner,  famous  for  his  piety,  withdrew  his  dragoons  to  Linlithgow, 
in  place  of  attacking  the  clans  in  their  march.     A  mysterious  event 


PANIC    IN    EDINBURGH.  465 

occurred  at  Buchanan's  other  house,  Leny,  near  Callander.  Stewart 
of  Glenbuckie,  on  his  way  to  join  the  Prince,  stayed  here  for  the 
night,  and  next  morning  was  found  shot,  a  pistol  in  his  hand.  His 
host,  later  hanged,  proclaimed  his  own  innocence  :  Glenbuckie's 
men  went  home.  Charles  now  led  his  troops  on  the  southern  side 
of  Forth,  passing  Stirling,  where  the  Castle  fired  a  distant  and 
random  gun.  He  slept  at  Callander  House,  Lord  Kilmarnock's, 
whither  Mary  brought  Darnley  on  his  fatal  journey  to  Kirk  o'  Field, 
— a  haunted  house  for  Charles.  Lunching  with  Sir  Hugh  Paterson 
at  Bannockburn  House,  he  may  have  met  the  black-eyed  Clementina 
VValkinshaw,  Sir  Hugh's  niece,  and  thought  more  of  her  than  of 
Bruce.  Lord  George,  at  night,  attempted  to  surprise  Gardiner  at 
Linlithgow,  but  the  dragoons  had  again  beaten  a  retreat.  Linlith- 
gow was  the  next  stage;  on  the  i6th,  Corstorphine,  near  Edinburgh, 
was  reached,  Gardiner's  dragoons  retiring  to  meet  Hamilton's  at 
Coltbridge,  utterly  demoralised. 

In  Edinburgh  all  was  terror  and  confusion.  The  mere  name  of 
the  Provost,  Stuart,  caused  him  to  be  suspected  ;  he  was  later  tried 
and  acquitted,  probably  with  justice.  Professor  Maclaurin  had  been 
trying  to  fortify,  vnth  scanty  assistance,  the  ramshackle  old  wall,  and 
had  mounted  a  few  small  guns.-^  Maclaurin  is  called  "  the 
Archimedes  of  the  age  "  by  "  an  Impartial  Hand,"  "  who  was  an  eye- 
witness to  the  Facts."  Public  and  private  treasures  were  stored  in 
the  Castle,  where  were  arms  enough  for  6000  men.  There  came 
in  about  a  sixth  of  that  number  of  volunteers,  with  the  future  Dr 
Carlyle,  and  hasty  efforts  were  made  to  teach  them  the  use  of 
weapons.  On  Sunday  morning  (September  15)  they  were  told  that 
they,  the  Town  Guard,  half  of  a  new  regiment,  and  the  rural 
volunteers,  were  to  march  out  and  attack  the  enemy  advancing  from 
Corstorphine  on  Grey's  Mill,  near  Slateford  on  the  Water  of  Leith. 
Hamilton's  dragoons  were  cheered  by  the  volunteers  as  they  trotted 
to  join  Gardiner's,  but  one  young  preacher  remarked  that  he  was 
reminded  of  the  attack  of  the  Gens  Fabia  on  the  Gauls  approaching 
Rome.  "  They  all  perished  to  a  man."  All  who  heard  him 
laughed,  and  he  was  advised  to  return  to  his  Livy.  But  the  gallant 
volunteer  band  melted  as  it  marched  to  the  West  Port,  and  no 
supports  appeared.  The  bells  "  jowed,"  congregations  were  scanty, 
the  Principal  adjured  the  students  to  remember  their  dear  kinsfolk, 
and,  in  fact,  nobody  moved  with  the  dragoons  except  ninety 
veterans  of  the  Town  Guard,  once  commanded  by  Porteous.^ 

VOL.  IV.  2  G 


466  LOCHIEL  ENTERS  EDINBURGH. 

In  the  open,  on  Monday,  both  regiments  of  dragoons  fled  from 
a  small  patrol  of  Jacobite  mounted  gentry:  the  rout  is  called  "the 
Canter  of  Coltbridge."  They  were  seen  flying  along  the  road  now 
occupied  by  George  Street,  and  they  did  not  stop  till  they  reached 
Musselburgh,  six  miles  away.  The  Lord  Advocate,  the  Justice- 
Clerk,  and  the  Solicitor-General  decamped  to  their  country  houses, 
while  the  Prince  sent  a  caddie  or  street  messenger  to  summon  the 
Provost  to  surrender.  A  confused  meeting  was  held  in  the  Gold- 
smith's Hall  :  the  Provost,  who  declined  to  read  the  letter  signed 
"  Charles,  Prince  Regent,"  was  not  supported,  and  three  Bailies, 
with  the  Convener,  were  ordered  to  meet  the  Prince.  They  re- 
turned with  a  repetition  of  his  demands,  and  a  new  deputation 
went  to  ask  for  delay ;  but  there  was  a  rumour  that  Cope  had 
reached  Dunbar,  and  no  delay  was  granted.  Coutts,  one  of  the 
envoys,  deposed  at  the  Provost's  trial  that  he  heard  Charles  say 
to  Lord  Elcho,  a  recruit  of  that  night,  "  My  Lord  Elcho,  Lord 
George  has  not  spirit  to  put  this  order  into  execution  ;  you  must 
go  and  do  it  for  him."  Elcho  then  came  out,  and  briefly  remarked 
"  Get  you  gone ! "  Horace  Walpole,  who  had  known  Elcho  in 
Italy,  accuses  him  of  ferocity,  and  no  entreaties,  later,  won  his 
pardon  from  Government.  Lord  George,  says  Coutts,  was  gentler, — 
"  I  know  your  pinch,"  he  said ;  "  you  want  to  have  the  consent 
of  your  principal  inhabitants.  Make  haste  to  town  :  you'll  have 
an  hour  or  two  to  obtain  it." 

Back  went  the  Bailies  in  their  cab,  and  when  the  Nether  Bow 
was  opened  for  the  coach  to  go  out  to  its  stable,  about  3  a.m., 
Lochiel  seized  the  porter,  and  in  marched  his  Camerons.  Murray 
had  led  them  round  by  Merchiston  ;  under  the  Castle  guns  they 
had  heard  the  sentries  challenging  and  replying,  and  they  simply 
walked  into  Edinburgh  behind  the  Bailies.^'-'  Murray  describes  the 
state  of  the  walls,  and  the  scheme  which  had  been  formed  for 
taking  them.  The  place  would  have  fallen  in  half  a  day  certainly, 
with  deplorable  results.  Sullivan  now  disposed  guards ;  the  High- 
landers behaved  in  the  most  quiet  style,  Lochiel  having  forbidden 
them  to  taste  the  offered  drams.  They  were  naturally  soldiers  of 
the  best,  as  orderly  as  they  were  brave :  from  ordinary  troops 
Edinburgh  might  have  suffered  sorely. 

Cope  reached  Dunbar  about  the  time  when  the  Highlanders 
took  the  town.  Charles  entered  Holyrood  at  noon  :  people  knelt 
to  him  and  kissed  his  hand  when  he  dismounted,  and  he  "  received 


THE   PRINCE   MARCHES   AGAINST   COPE.  467 

them  in  a  very  popular  way,"  says  an  eyewitness,  the  "Impartial 
Hand."  He  was  in  Highland  habit,  rather  strangely  composed 
of  "red  velvet  breeches,  a  green  velvet  bonnet,  with  a  white 
cockade,"  and  boots.  Probably  he  wore  a  tartan  jacket,  or  a  plaid 
over  his  coat.  "  His  speech  was  very  like  that  of  an  Irishman." 
Proclamations  were  now  read  at  the  Cross,  the  Camerons  forming 
a  guard,  and  Charles  entered  the  palace  and  occupied  the  Duke 
of  Hamilton's  rooms.  The  Prince  had  come  home  at  last  to  the 
house  where  his  race  had  known  so  many  strange  fortunes  ;  where 
Riccio  was  stabbed  ;  where  Mary  held  Twelfth  Night  revels  and 
confronted  Knox ;  where  she  whispered  with  Bothwell  on  the 
morning  of  Darnley's  murder ;  where  a  later  Bothwell  kidnapped 
James  VI.  It  was  an  hour  of  great  adventure,  of  forlorn  dreams 
at  last  fulfilled, — an  hour  for  tears  of  joy.  Nunc  dimittis  may  have 
been  the  thought  of  many  a  heart  long  true  to  impossible  loyalties, 
long  sick  with  hope  deferred. 

At  the  Cross  the  beautiful  Mrs  Murray  of  Broughton,  whose 
fate  is  so  mysterious,  sat  her  horse,  a  bright  sword  in  her  hand, 
distributing  white  cockades  to  the  crowd.  The  ladies  were  almost 
all  Jacobites ;  but  they  did  not  secure  many  volunteers  for  the 
Prince,  who  was  already  arranging  for  supplies,  and  seizing  arms 
for  a  host  in  which  scythes  set  on  staves  did  military  duty  as 
bills.  No  time  was  to  be  wasted  :  Cope  had  disembarked  his 
men  at  Dunbar  by  September  18.  He  had  good  intelligence 
through  Mr  Home,  later  known  as  the  author  of  '  Douglas,'  one 
of  the  academic  Edinburgh  volunteers,  who  had  watched  the  dis- 
tribution of  food  to  Charles's  men,  carefully  counted  them,  and 
estimated  them  under  2000.^^  This  agrees  with  what  we  know 
of  the  composition  of  the  force  at  this  moment :  the  recruits  just 
arrived  may  have  brought  the  host  up  to  2400.  At  Aberdeen 
Cope  had  guessed  the  enemy  at  about  4000  :  the  muster-roll  of 
Patullo  the  Muster- master,  lent  to  Home,  puts  the  Jacobites  at 
2500.  Cope,  by  the  calculation  of  the  late  Sir  Robert  Cadell, 
had  Hamilton's  and  Gardiner's  demoralised  dragoons,  1400  foot, 
six  small  guns  manned  by  sailors,  and  six  small  mortars,  while 
Charles  had  no  artillery. 

On  September  20  the  Prince  marched,  having  learned  that  day 
that  Cope  had  2700  men."^^  He  provided  amateur  ambulances, 
coaches  and  chaises,  and  threw  his  handful  of  horse,  under  Elcho, 
in  advance   as   scouts.      According  to  Carlyle,  who  was  acting  as 


468  THE   EVE   OF   PRESTONPANS. 

a  kind  of  scout  for  Cope,  he  was  surprised  when  that  General, 
avoiding  the  high  post -road  through  Tranent  moor,  which  com- 
manded the  country,  turned  to  the  right  and  the  level  lands  on 
the  north  towards  the  Firth  of  Forth,  and  occupied  an  open  field 
of  two  miles  in  length  by  a  mile  and  a  half  in  breadth,  extending 
from  Seaton  to  Prestonpans  and  from  Tranent  meadow  to  the  sea. 
Carlyle  understood  that  Cope  had  meant  to  occupy  ground  de- 
fended by  the  Esk  in  front,  with  Dalkeith  and  Musselburgh  handy 
for  supplies.  But  Home  and  Loudoun  brought  news  that  the  clans 
were  on  the  march,  "  through  Tranent  without  a  stent,"  as  Skir- 
ving's  song  says,  and,  after  a  hesitating  halt,  Cope  made  for  the 
fields  already  described,  bare  of  sheaves,  unenclosed,  and  marked 
by  a  solitary  thorn-tree — later  the  centre  of  the  slaughter.  Cope's 
army  fronted  west,  but  seeing  the  enemy  on  high  ground  at  Birsley, 
a  mile  away  to  the  south-west,  he  shifted  eastward  to  front  them. 
The  Chevalier  Johnstone,  an  imaginative  writer,  but  experienced 
in  war,  describes  Cope's  position  as  fortified  by  nature,  and  the 
happiest  for  so  small  an  army.  In  front  was  a  morass,  and,  just 
in  advance  of  the  outposts,  a  deep  ditch  of  twelve  feet  wide, 
into  which  the  morass  drained  itself.  On  the  left  was  another 
morass,  behind  Cope  was  the  sea,  and  his  right  rested  on  high 
park  walls.^2 

The  clans  manoeuvred  so  that  Cope  changed  his  front :  his  right 
now  was  defended  by  the  ditch  and  morass,  on  his  left  was  the 
sea.  To  cut  his  road  to  Edinburgh,  Charles  posted  some  High- 
landers in  the  churchyard  of  Tranent :  Cope  shelled  them,  and, 
after  a  dispute  between  Sullivan  and  Lord  George,  they  were  with- 
drawn. The  facts  are  obscure  :  Carlyle,  from  the  church  steeple, 
saw  a  body  retire,  and  another,  or  the  same,  occupy  a  "  loan " 
leading  south  -  west  from  Prestonpans.^**  The  object  of  these 
niancjeuvres  was  to  sever  Cope  from  Edinburgh.  Carlyle,  fatigued 
with  duty,  now  went  to  bed,  was  wakened  by  the  first  gun,  ran 
out,  and  learned  from  his  father,  who  had  watched  from  the 
steeple,  that  Cope  was  already  routed  :  so  rapid  was  the  victory 
of  September  2  i  ! 

The  common  story  is  that  Charles  did  not  learn  till  the  dead  of 
night  that  there  was  a  path  through  the  morass.  Murray,  however, 
represents  this  news,  given  by  young  Anderson  of  Whitburgh,  as 
having  been  brought  while  apparently  there  was  yet  light  enough 
for  the  battle  on  September  20.      Lord  (Jeorge  wished  to  charge, 


THE  BATTLE  OF  PRESTONPANS.  469 

but  "  the  night  being  far  advanced,"  Charles  delayed.  The  tale  is 
confused,  but  Carlyle  represents  Gardiner  as  aware  that  the  High- 
landers "  were  very  near  our  army,  with  little  more  than  the  morass 
between."^*  Murray  says  that  the  clans  were  within  three  hundred 
and  fifty  yards  of  Cope,  but  apparently  these  yards  were  occupied 
by  the  morass,  through  which  a  way  was  not  shown  till  after  mid- 
night. The  clans  passed  through  in  the  dark  :  the  path,  says  Ker 
of  Graden,  a  Roxburghshire  volunteer  and  admirable  officer,  whose 
account  is  in  the  '  Lockhart  Papers,'  was  wet  to  the  knee.  The 
Prince  was  not  permitted  to  lead  the  first  line,  and,  with  Macdonald 
of  Morar,  led  the  second,  falling,  says  Johnstone,  who  was  near  him, 
as  he  leaped  the  ditch. 

Meanwhile,  having  crossed  to  firm  ground,  the  Macdonalds,  on 
the  right,  under  Perth ;  the  Camerons  and  Appin  Stewarts,  on 
the  left,  under  Lord  George,  threw  down  their  plaids,  drew 
swords,  and  simply  drove  Cope  off  the  ground.  So  swiftly  was 
all  over  that  the  Prince  and  Johnstone,  "  not  more  than  fifty  paces 
behind,  and  running  as  fast  as  we  could,"  found  the  field  empty 
except  for  dead  and  wounded  men.^^  As  at  Killiecrankie,  the 
battle  was  ended,  as  Mackay  says,  "  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye." 
On  the  left  the  Camerons  and  Macgregors,  urged  on  by  a  speech 
from  their  wounded  leader,  James  Mor,  swept  over  the  unmanned 
guns,  which  were  discharged  once  by  Colonel  Whitefoord.  The 
dragoons  beside  them  fled  at  once,  some  towards  Berwick,  some 
to  the  Castle  of  Edinburgh, — "  they  ran  like  rabbits,"  as  the  Prince 
wrote  to  his  father.  Colonel  Gardiner,  wounded  by  a  bullet,  but 
striving  to  rally  a  knot  of  infantry,  was  cut  down  by  a  crowd  of 
Highlanders.  Whitney's  dragoons,  instead  of  falling  on  the  Cameron 
flank,  wavered  and  galloped  away  eastwards.  The  English  infantry 
opposed  to  Perth,  being  confused  and  surprised,  "gave  only  an 
infamous  puff,  and  no  platoon,"  says  Lord  Dunmore  ;  "  fired  too 
soon,  and  almost  turned  their  backs  before  the  Highlanders  could 
engage  them  with  their  swords,"  says  Murray.^^  "  The  foot  gave 
one  good  fire  from  right  to  left ;  but  before  they  could  give  a 
second,  the  Highlanders  were  upon  them  sword  in  hand,"  says 
Maxwell.^^  The  fire  accounted  for  the  Prince's  losses,  "being  all 
gun-shot,"  says  Murray. 

Charles,  writing  to  his  father  (October  7/18),  states  his  killed  and 
wounded  at  about  a  hundred.^''  Friends  like  Maxwell  and  Murray, 
and  an  honest  foe  like  Home,  agree  in  testifying  that  the  Prince 


470  HUMANE  CONDUCT  OF  CHARLES. 

"  thought  of  nothing  at  first  but  having  the  wounded  taken  care  of, 
his  enemies  as  well  as  his  own."^^  Home  says  that  this  duty 
occupied  him  till  mid-day ;  and  Murray  even  grumbles  that  Cope's 
men  were  seen  to  first,  "  to  the  great  loss  of  the  wounded  of  his 
own  army."*°  Carlyle  also  remarked  the  humanity  of  Charles's 
officers,  and  learned  that  the  chiefs  "were  civil  to  everybody."*^ 
The  contrast  of  Cumberland's  brutality  after  CuUoden  is  black 
enough  !  From  traditional  anecdotes  it  seems  probable  that,  in 
the  heat  of  blood,  clansmen  cut  down  brave  English  officers  who 
refused  to  surrender,  or,  at  least,  that  "  they  were  pressing  to  have 
cut  them  down."  Thus  the  gallant  Colonel  Whitefoord,  who  alone 
stood  by  the  guns,  would  have  been  slain  but  for  the  interposition 
of  Sir  Walter  Scott's  friend,  Stewart  of  Invernahyle.  Gardiner 
might  have  been  overmastered  and  taken,  but  his  desire  was  not 
to  live.  There  is  also  a  local  tradition  that  some  runaways  were 
sliced  from  behind  in  trying  to  climb  the  high  wall  of  Pinkie  park. 
But  the  chiefs  did  their  best  to  prevent  useless  slaughter,  as  the 
list  of  captured  officers  proves.  Of  these  almost  all — Sir  Peter 
Halket  was  an  honourable  exception — obeyed  Cumberland's  order 
to  break  their  parole. 

Murray  reckons  Cope's  loss  at  8  officers  and  300  men  killed,  and 
400  or  500  wounded  and  taken,  with  83  officers.  Lord  George 
says  1200  killed  and  wounded,  and  1800  prisoners,  the  wounded 
included.^^  All  the  baggage,  with  its  guard  of  Highlanders,  was 
captured,  and  the  guns,  of  course,  were  taken.  The  affair  was 
like  a  sudden  onslaught  of  Soudanese  spearmen  or  Zulus,  an  Abu 
Klea  or  Isandhlana.  Murray,  like  Carlyle,  blames  Cope  for  not 
having  marched  earlier  and  secured  the  Esk  from  Inveresk  to  Pinkie, 
while  his  choice  of  ground  proved  to  his  troops  that  he  distrusted 
them  if  they  were  not  secured  by  natural  fortifications  and  the  park 
walls  which  barred  their  flight.  He  neglected  to  reconnoitre  the 
morass,  and  posted  no  men  and  guns  to  guard  the  pass.  It  is 
always  easy  to  criticise  a  defeated  general ;  but  Cope  was  certainly 
not  responsible  for  the  flight  of  the  demoralised  dragoons,  who,  if 
confident,  might  have  saved  the  day,  nor  for  the  lack  of  artillerymen. 
With  Cope's  troops  no  English  general  of  the  day  would  have  been 
victorious,  granting  that  the  Highlanders  were  allowed  to  take  the 
offensive,  and  that  the  artillery  could  not  come  into  action. 

Had  Charles  been  at  the  head  of  a  full  muster  of  the  clans,  the 
policy  of  audacity  would  have   led   him   to   enter  England  before 


THE   POLITICAL   SITUATION.  47 1 

England  could  call  back  her  troops,  and  her  Dutch,  Swiss,  Danish, 
and  Hessian  mercenaries  from  the  Continent.  The  Prince,  says 
Murray,  considered  the  project  of  crossing  the  Border,  but  his 
little  army  was  reduced  by  desertions :  clansmen  were  carrying 
home  their  loot :  to  leave  Edinburgh  would  be  to  enable  the 
English  reinforcements  to  land  in  his  rear.  The  Prince  therefore 
sent  messengers  to  ask  for  men,  arms,  and  officers  in  France, 
while  Kinlochmoidart,  Macleod  of  Muiravonside,  and  Macdonnel 
of  Barisdale  were  despatched  to  Sleat,  Macleod,  and  Lovat, 
doubtful  and  dilatory  allies. 

To  many  qualified  observers  the  affair  seemed,  in  the  Greek 
idiom,  to  be  "on  a  razor's  edge," — a  featherweight  might  turn 
the  scale  for  Rome  or  for  Herrenhausen.  But  the  Prince  must 
have  seen  that  there  was  no  general  ferment  of  loyalty  to  him, 
or  of  desire  to  break  the  Union,  and  secure  national  independence. 
His  cause  was  without  a  solid  political  basis.  The  chiefs,  like 
Clanranald  and  Lochiel,  had  come  out  from  a  mere  sense  of 
honour,  and  their  men,  delighting  in  adventure,  followed  the  chiefs 
gladly,  save  when  they  were  brought  out,  as  in  Atholl,  by  burning 
their  houses  over  their  heads.  Blair  of  Glasclune  writes  later  to 
TuUibardine  :  **  I  have  succeeded  tolerably,  though  in  a  manner 
very  contrary  to  my  inclination,  being  often  obliged  to  use  the 
greatest  extremities — namely,  that  of  burning."  ^^  The  plea  of 
having  been  "  forced  out "  was  often  fictitious,  but  in  this  and 
other  cases  was  undeniably  true. 

Thus  the  clans  fought  for  honour,  or  because  they  had  no  choice 
in  the  matter,  or  for  the  mere  excitement  of  res  novcB.  Among  the 
Lowland  gentry  the  old  fierce  patriotism  of  Lockhart  was  decaying, 
and  it  was  loyalty  to  the  cause  and  king  of  their  fathers,  loyalty 
raised  to  the  height  of  ardent  personal  love,  which  brought  out 
such  men  as  the  Oliphants  of  Cask,  Lord  Pitsligo,  and  other 
representatives  of  the  Cavaliers.  Their  grievance  was  the  perse- 
cution of  their  little  Church,  and  another  motive  was  hereditary 
disdain  of  Presbyterian  discipline.  Such  motives  influenced  only 
a  small  minority,  and  when  Charles  in  his  proclamation  promised 
freedom,  he  learned  that  the  country  had  as  much  liberty  as  it 
wanted,  and  that  the  majority  associated  his  family  and  creed  with 
slavery  and  persecution.  He  supposed  that  a  long  course  of  oppres- 
sion had  rendered  them  apathetic,  but  they  understood  their  history 
in  the  opposite  sense.     Practically  he  had  no  political  cause  and 


472  ENGLAND   REINFORCED. 

no  political  support,  but  apathy  was  more  conspicuous  than  loyalty 
to  the  German  rulers. 

Marshal  Wade,  according  to  Henry  Fox,  said  that  if  5000  French 
arrived  before  6000  Dutch,  and  ten  English  battalions  from  abroad, 
"  England  was  for  the  first-comer."  The  country  was  indifferent : 
loyal  Whig  attempts,  English  or  Scottish,  to  raise  regiments  were 
not  encouraged.  Marchmont,  Stair,  and  Montrose  met  on  Sep- 
tember 10  :  Marchmont  and  Montrose  were  chilled  by  the  contempt 
of  Stair,  and  Queensbury  by  Tweeddale,  who  put  his  trust  solely  in 
British,  Dutch,  Swiss,  and  Danish  regular  troops.  France  was  not 
more  eager  to  help  Charles.  On  September  24  Monsieur  d'Eguilles 
got  his  orders  to  go  to  Scotland  as  a  kind  of  military  attachi  to  the 
Prince,  to  ascertain  his  real  situation.*"*  D'Eguilles  was  not  publicly 
accredited  to  Charles,  whom  he  served  to  the  best  of  his  power, 
while  France  dallied,  and  threw  away  an  opportunity  which  was 
excellent — if,  that  is,  she  could  transport  5000  men  to  England. 
Probably  she  was  quite  unable  to  face  the  British  fleet.  How- 
ever that  may  have  been,  Sempill  and  Balhaldy's  fables  had  made 
Louis  XV.  distrustful,  while  by  September  25  fresh  Dutch  and 
English  regiments  had  arrived  in  the  Thames,  and  were  to  meet 
at  Newcastle,  under  Wade.  General  Huske  had  left  London  for 
Newcastle  on  September  24  ;  Newcastle,  writing  to  Matthew  Ridley, 
announced  that  2000  men  would  land  from  Dublin  at  Chester; 
and  Ridley,  writing  to  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  said  that  2200  Swiss, 
with  five  companies  of  horse,  were  marching  north. "^^  Wightman, 
however,  at  Newcastle,  believed  that  all  would  be  over  if  the  French 
landed  near  London  :  he  describes  Gardiner's  dragoons  as  "  Irish 
dogs  "  :  if  so,  they  may  have  been  in  sympathy  with  the  force  from 
which  they  fled.***  Charles's  envoys  were  meeting  with  little  success 
in  the  effort  to  stir  up  Macleod,  Sleat,  and  Lovat,  while  at  Edin- 
burgh there  were  feeble  attempts  to  blockade  the  Castle,  which 
fired  on  the  town.  Finally  Charles  withdrew  the  blockade  (Sep- 
tember 29 -October  5).  Reinforcements  from  the  north  kept 
dropping  in, — Ogilvy  with  600  men  ;  Viscount  Dundee  with  a 
few  gentlemen  ;  old  Lord  Pitsligo  with  over  a  hundred  mounted 
gentry  and  some  250  foot;  120  Gordons  and  Mackinnons ;  the 
Master  of  Strathallan  with  300  men  ;  Arthur  Elphinstone  (Lord 
iialmcrino),  a  hundred  Macgregors ;  and,  by  October  30,  TuUi- 
bardine  with  a  rather  reluctant  600  men  from  Atholl.'*'' 

Cireat   promises  were   made   by  Macleod   and   the   Erasers,  and 


THE    PRINCE    KNOWS   HIS   DANGER.  473 

Lovat's  letters  to  Forbes  of  Culloden,  in  October,  become  almost 
Jacobite  :  he  says  that  he  is  unable  to  stop  his  clan,  who  insist  on 
marching  under  his  son,  Simon,  a  student  at  St  Andrews.  A 
feeble  attempt  to  attack  Culloden  House  was  made  on  October  16 
by  the  Frasers,  for  which  I.ovat  apologised.  His  son  did  march 
before  the  end  of  November ;  but  Lovat's  delays  had  taken  the 
spirit  out  of  a  gallant  clan,  who  never  knew  what  were  the  real 
designs  of  their  venerable  chief.  It  is  not  improbable  that  Charles's 
muster-roll  included  6000  efficient  men,  while  a  shuffling  treaty  of 
alliance  with  France,  concluded  at  Fontainebleau  between  d'Argen- 
son  for  Louis  XV.  and  O'Brien  for  James,  neutralised  the  6000 
Dutch  who,  by  the  previous  treaty  of  Tournay,  could  not  fight 
against  France  or  her  ally.^^ 

The  Prince  did  not  fail  to  understand  the  almost  hopeless  nature 
of  his  enterprise.  D'Eguilles  told  his  Government  that  Charles  had 
10,000  men, — a  greatly  exaggerated  estimate;  but  Charles  assured 
him  that,  if  French  assistance  did  not  come,  or  came  too  late, 
"  I  cannot  resist  English,  Dutch,  Hessians,  and  Swiss."  He  had 
not  yet  learned  that  the  Dutch  were  neutralised  under  the  treaty 
of  Fontainebleau  (October  23).  On  October  15/26  Charles 
wrote  his  last  letter  to  James,  from  this  country,  which  I  have 
seen  in  the  Stuart  MSS.  at  Windsor  Castle.  He  expresses  much 
affection  and  regret  for  having  offended  the  king  by  taking  with 
him  Strickland,  whom  James,  for  various  reasons,  thought  a  mis- 
chievous adviser.  Strickland  was  in  ill-health,  and  died  at  Carlisle. 
Charles  states  his  force  at  8000,  with  300  horse,  but  the  infantry 
are  over-estimated.  "  With  these,  as  matters  stand,  I  shal  have 
one  desisive  stroke  for't,  but  iff  [unless  ?]  ye  French  land,  perhaps 
none.  ...  As  matters  stand,  I  must  either  conquer  or  perish 
in  a  little  while."  *^ 

The  Prince's  courage  and  sense  have  been  disputed,  but  when 
he  wrote  this  letter — 

"  Like  some  bold  seer  in  a  trance, 
Seeing  all  his  own  mischance  " — 

he  displayed  both  bravery  and  a  full  intelligence  of  the  situation. 
With  a  price  on  his  head  he  ventured  into  the  heart  of  England, 
merely  to  win  a  battle  if  he  might,  and,  by  his  risk,  and  his  victory 
if  he  won  it,  to  extort  aid  from  the  most  shifty  of  nominal 
allies.     It   was  a   gallant   enterprise,  and  the  whole  weight  of  the 


474  THE   PRINCES    PLAN    REJECTED. 

evidence  proves  that  the  Prince  never  blenched,  but  steadfastly 
went  to  his  glory  or  his  grave.  The  mass  of  the  clans  were  as 
resolute  and  as  eager :  whatever  befell  later  shakes  no  rose  from 
the  chaplets  of  Charles  and  his  men.  From  the  Prince's  letter  to 
James  it  appears  that,  if  no  French  force  landed  in  England,  he 
had  no  hope  of  any  considerable  English  rising.  On  September 
27  his  envoy  to  the  English  of  his  party,  one  Hickson,  had  been 
arrested  at  Newcastle.^"  In  place  of  a  French  force,  the  timid 
English  Jacobites  saw  the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  who  was  a  resolute 
if  not  a  scientific  general,  landed  from  Flanders  on  October  19. 

On  October  30  Charles  held  a  council  of  war.  French  supplies 
had  been  safely  landed  at  Stonehaven,  with  artillery  and  gunners 
under  Grant,  an  excellent  officer  in  French  service.  From  Stone- 
haven Mr  Colville  announced  that  6000  French,  under  the  Earl 
Marischal,  were  ready  at  Dunkirk  ;  but  the  prayers  of  the  Duke 
of  York,  now  in  France,  were  of  no  avail, — the  French  merely 
dallied  as  usual.  Still,  there  were  hopes  of  them,  and  the  Prince, 
according  to  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell,  was  anxious  to  attack  Wade 
at  Newcastle,  or  wherever  he  could  find  him  on  the  eastern  route. 
This  was  the  better  plan,  as,  the  Dutch  being  neutralised,  Wade 
senile,  and  his  English  force  wearied  with  marching,  the  Prince 
would  have  won  an  encouraging  victory  on  English  soil !  Of  course, 
the  volunteers  of  England  were  of  no  military  value.  Lord  George 
Murray,  as  usual,  opposed  Charles,  urging  the  difficulty  of  crossing 
Tweed,  which  might  have  been  considerable,  after  a  defeat.  Still, 
to  march  to  Carlisle  was  to  leave  Wade  on  the  Prince's  flank,  in 
place  of  "discussing"  him,  and  clearing  the  way.  Murray  justly 
remarks  that  to  evade  Wade  was  to  permit  him  to  join  Cumberland 
as  soon  as  he  marched  north.  Charles  would  then  either  have  to 
fight  thrice  his  own  numbers,  or  slip  south,  where  nobody  would 
join  a  leader  with  an  overwhelming  force  on  his  rear  ;  or — retreat, 
as  he  did,  from  Derby. ^^ 

In  the  circumstances,  as  far  as  we  can  venture  an  opinion, 
Charles  (perhaps  advised  by  Sullivan)  chose  the  better  part ;  but  he 
was  overruled  by  Lord  George,  gave  up  his  own  plan,  and  went 
to  meet  the  inevitable  failure.  Granting  that  Lord  George's  plan 
was  the  more  unhopeful,  his  dispositions  were  good  for  the  western 
advance.  On  October  31  Charles,  reinforced  by  400  of  Cluny's 
Macphersons,  concentrated  at  Dalkeith.  On  November  i  Tulli- 
bardine  and  Perth,  with  the  Atholl  men,  the  Lowland  recruits,  the 


SIEGE   OF   CARLISLE.  475 

artillery,  the  regiments  of  Ogilvy,  Glenhucket,  and  Roy  Stewart,  and 
Kilmarnock's  mounted  men,  marched  south  by  Peebles,  Moffat,  and 
Lockerbie.  The  Prince's  column,  the  clans.  Lord  George  Murray, 
and  Elcho's  and  Pitsligo's  horse,  moved  by  way  of  Lauder  and 
Kelso,  where  they  halted  while  the  gallant  Ker  of  Graden  scouted 
with  horsemen  towards  Wooler,  so  as  to  appear  to  threaten  an  attack 
on  Wade  at  Newcastle  (November  5).  Charles  next  day  went  to 
Jedburgh,  and  up  the  valley  of  Rule  water  to  Larriston,  of  old  the 
seat  of  the  chief  of  the  Elliot  clan,  who  in  times  past  would  have 
rallied  to  his  standard,  with  the  Armstrongs,  under  such  men  as 
rescued  Kinmont  Willie.  But  the  Border  love  of  war  for  war's  sake 
had  long  been  dead  :  dead  were  the  prickers  that  followed  the 
banner  of  Bothwell,  broken  were  the  moss-troopers  of  17 15,  rusty 
were  the  swords  and  obsolete  the  spears  of  Scotts,  Elliots,  and  Arm- 
strongs, Croziers,  Nixons,  Irvings,  and  Bells.  Charles  and  the  clans 
marched,  unwelcomed  and  unopposed,  down  the  southern  bank  of 
peaceful  Liddel :  the  horsemen  rode  by  Hawick  and  Langholm. 
Peacefully  they  passed  through  what  had  been  a  region  of  warlike 
men.  On  November  9  Charles  and  the  clans  were  joined  by  Tulli- 
bardine's  column,  and  camped  two  miles  west  of  merry  Carlisle. 

At  Carlisle  the  Deputy  Mayor,  one  Pattinson,  a  fussy  and  boast- 
ful person,  refused  to  surrender,  confiding  in  the  town  walls  and 
in  the  local  militia.  On  November  10,  in  a  thick  mist,  Perth, 
Sullivan,  with  Grant  and  a  Colonel  Geoghegan,  reconnoitred  the 
Penrith  gate  :  a  battery  was  made,  and  a  blockade  was  arranged, 
the  AthoU  men  opening  the  trenches.  In  the  evening  Charles 
heard  that  Wade  was  approaching,  and  moved  to  Brampton,  seven 
miles  on  the  Newcastle  road,  where  the  Prince  and  the  army 
hoped  for  a  victory,  which  Murray  rightly  deemed  inevitable,  as  the 
hilly  ground  favoured  Highland  tactics  ;  but  old  Wade  never  stirred, 
and  on  November  13  Charles  sent  half  his  force  back  to  dig  and 
man  the  trenches.  Spade  work  did  not  suit  the  genius  of  the  fight- 
ing clans,  and  Lord  George  throughout  thought  that  his  AthoU  men 
were  regarded  as  inferior  combatants — indeed,  they  were  reluctant 
to  rise.  But  Charles  did  not  send  the  fiercer  clans  to  take  their 
turn  with  the  spade,  and  Lord  George  in  anger  resigned  his  com- 
mission (November  14),  though  ready  to  serve  in  the  trenches  as  a 
volunteer.  That  night  Carlisle  hung  out  the  white  flag,  and  as 
Lord  George's  resignation  had  been  quietly  accepted  by  the  Prince^ 
Murray  and  Perth  were  sent  to  arrange  terms.     They  insisted  that 


47^  MARCH   THROUGH    LANCASHIRE. 

the  Castle  as  well  as  the  town  must  surrender,  and  carried  their 
point;  but  Lord  George  (as  he  wrote  on  November  15  to  Tulli- 
bardine)  was  jealous,  and  offended  by  the  prominence  of  Murray. 
Perth,  as  a  Catholic,  was  thought  apt  to  be  unpopular  with  EngHsh 
Protestants,  and  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell,  according  to  his  account 
of  the  campaign,  hinted  to  him  that  he  should  resign  in  favour  of 
Lord  George.  Perth  behaved  admirably,  and  Murray  does  not  con- 
ceal his  own  respect  for  the  soldiership  of  Lord  George  :  he  asked 
the  leave  of  Charles  "to  absent  himself  from  his  councils." ^^  por 
the  moment  Lord  George  was  pacified,  but  there  was  an  end  of  good 
feeling.  Here  it  should  be  remarked  that  Lord  George  had  served 
in  the  Royals  (17 12-17 15)  before  he  joined  Mar  in  the  campaign 
of  the  latter  year.^  Carlisle  having  fallen,  Wade  (November  10) 
marched  to  recover  it,  but  retired  from  Hexham  to  Newcastle  on 
November  22  :  he  said  that  snow  had  made  the  roads  impassable.^ 

On  the  20th  a  council  determined  to  leave  a  garrison  in  Carlisle 
and  march  south  to  raise  the  Jacobites  of  Lancashire.  Desertions 
had  been  frequent,  and,  as  far  as  the  writer  can  calculate,  Charles 
was  not  accompanied  in  his  southward  march  by  more  than  4500 
men,  and  a  few  ladies  in  carriages  :  among  them  was  Mrs  Murray  of 
Broughton.  The  English  believed — wrongly,  says  Bishop  Forbes, 
who  may  be  relied  on — that  Jessie  Cameron  also  made  the  cam- 
paign. For  some  reason,  based  on  no  known  evidence,  the  English 
conceived  that  this  lady  was  the  Prince's  Egeria  :  her  age,  we  know, 
was  about  fifty.  If  Charles  received  a  letter  of  November  26, 
written  by  his  brother  the  Duke  of  York,  he  may  have  expected  a 
movement  of  French  forces  to  his  aid  on  December  20,  N.S.''^  It 
is  certain,  in  any  case,  that  Ligonier,  on  November  16,  had  orders 
to  march  an  army  of  twice  the  force  of  the  Prince's  into  Lancashire, 
with  2200  horse  and  30  guns.  Against  this  Lord  John  Drummond 
landed  at  Montrose,  with  some  800  details  from  Irish  regiments  in 
French  service,  on  November  22.''**  It  was  their  arrival  that,  by  the 
treaty  of  Tournay,  put  Wade's  Dutch  out  of  action. 

While  the  Prince  was  reducing  Carlisle,  in  Scotland  the  Judges, 
and  other  important  persons  who  had  fled  from  l'2dinburgh,  returned 
thither  (November  13) ;  the  fugitives  of  Prestonpans  were  collected 
under  their  colours ;  Edinburgh,  Glasgow,  and  Stirling  raised 
volunteers  ;  and  the  leader  of  the  Secession,  the  Rev.  Mr  Erskine, 
displayed  at  Stirling  his  loyalty  to  the  Protestant  reigning  family. 
■On  the  Prince's  side,  Strathallan  was  mustering  a  considerable  force 


LANCASHIRE   DOES    NOT   RISE.  477 

from  the  north  at  Perth,  but,  as  we  shall  see,  they  did  not  march 
south  to  join  Charles.  At  this  time  two  of  Lord  John  Drummond's 
transports  were  captured  :  on  board  one  of  them  was  young  Glen- 
garry. He  was  for  long  confined  in  the  Tower ;  while  his  brother, 
-^neas,  continued  to  command  the  Glengarry  regiment  of  Mac- 
donnells,  and,  after  the  death  of  yEneas,  old  Glengarry  sent  James, 
his  son  by  his  second  wife,  a  boy.  In  France  the  Duke  of  York 
was  vainly  urging  the  despatch  of  the  army  collected  at  Dunkirk. 
Without  that  force  Charles  knew  that  the  English  Jacobites  would  sit 
still,  but  he  advanced  in  hopes  of  French  assistance.  Neither 
Jacobites  nor  Hanoverians  had  the  slightest  scruple  about  accepting 
foreign  aid  :  if  Charles  expected  the  French,  George  employed  any 
Dutch,  Swiss,  Danes,  or  Germans  whom  he  could  induce  to  support 
his  throne.  On  November  2 1  Charles  reached  Penrith,  and  so 
went  by  Kendal  and  Lancaster  to  Preston  (November  26,  27), — 
Preston,  twice  fatal  to  Scottish  Royalists  who  were  striving  to 
raise  the  Royalists  of  England. 

It  was  doubtless  from  the  sanguine  reports  collected,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  Balhaldy  and  Butler  (1743)  that  Charles  learned  to 
expect,  from  Lancashire,  the  Stanleys,  Barrymore,  Petre,  Chester- 
field, Molyneux,  Shuttleworth,  Curzon,  Fenwick,  and  Lister.  From 
Chesire  he  looked  for  Cholmondeleys,  Warburtons,  Grosvenors, 
and  Leighs.  The  representatives  of  these  ancient  families  sat 
still.  At  Preston  the  ill-fated  Mr  Townley,  with  two  of  the 
Vaughans,  set  an  example  of  self-sacrificing  loyalty,  which  was  not 
followed  by  the  rest  of  the  Jacobite  gentry.  From  Wales  came  a 
Mr  Morgan,  and  probably  held  out  hopes  of  a  contingent  under 
Sir  Watkin  Wynne,  a  Parliamentary  Jacobite.  But  though  the 
Welsh  "  had  a  great  mind  to  be  rising,"  like  the  hero  of  the 
Gaelic  song,  their  movements  were  slow  and  undecided,  and  their 
discretion  overcame  their  valour  when  Charles  began  his  retreat. 

Near  Garstang  the  Duke  of  York  picked  up  a  young  English 
gentleman  volunteer,  Captain  Daniel,  who,  almost  alone  among 
the  English  recruits,  followed  the  flag  to  Culloden.  After  great 
sufferings  and  many  strange  adventures,  he  escaped  in  the  same 
French  ship  as  the  Duke  of  Perth.  He  has  left  an  unpublished 
manuscript  account,  rather  of  curious  interest  than  of  historical 
value.  He  adored  Charles,  and,  though  a  most  good-humoured 
man,  entertained  absurd  suspicions  of  Lord  George  Murray. 

So  far,  Lord  George  had  moved  in  advance,  with  the  southern 


478  APPEARANCE   OF   THE   ARMY. 

Highlanders,  the  Atholl  men,  and  other  Perthshire  levies.  Maxwell 
of  Kirkconnell  tells  us,  and  is  corroborated  by  a  contemporary 
English  letter,  that  Lowlanders  wore  the  Highland  costume, 
"which  was  the  uniform  of  the  whole  army."  The  Lowland 
horse,  under  Elcho,  went  in  front,  and  probably  few  of  the  infantry 
wore  other  than  the  Highland  garb.^^  The  Prince,  with  Pitsligo's 
horse  and  the  western  clans,  was  in  the  rear.  Charles,  as  an 
English  letter-writer,  a  Macclesfield  man,  informs  us,  marched  on 
foot  always  :  he  was  a  trained  pedestrian.  On  November  2  7  the 
Duke  of  Cumberland  arrived  at  Lichfield  and  took  over  the  com- 
mand of  Ligonier,  incapacitated  by  bad  health.  Meanwhile  Wade 
reached  Persbridge,  moving  from  Newcastle,  while  Cumberland's 
force  was  in  cantonments  from  Tamworth  to  Stafford,  with  his 
cavalry  at  Newcastle-under-Lyne.^^  On  November  29,  30,  the 
Prince  was  at  Manchester,  then  a  pretty  town,  where,  for  the  first 
time,  says  Maxwell,  he  met  a  gallant  welcome  and  "general  con- 
currence." Several  young  men  of  good  families,  with  substantial 
tradesmen  and  farmers,  came  in,  and  about  a  hundred  "  common 
men."  These,  with  the  details  already  picked  up  in  England, 
were  constituted  into  the  Manchester  Regiment,  with  Townley  in 
command.  Despite  this  measure  of  encouragement.  Maxwell  says 
that  a  retreat  was  already  in  Lord  George's  mind  :  he  intended 
not  to  propose  it,  however,  until  they  arrived  at  Derby,  if  no  great 
aid  was  obtained  at  that  point  from  the  English.^'' 

On  December  i  the  Prince  reached  Macclesfield.  As  to  their 
appearance  and  demeanour,  we  have  a  long  letter  from  a  Mr 
Stafford,  a  reluctant  observer.*"*  He  says  that  "  the  Rebels " 
advanced  to  Macclesfield  on  hearing  of  a  visit  paid  by  twenty 
of  Cumberland's  dragoons,  who  hastily  withdrew.  Their  officer 
was  promising  the  ladies  to  protect  them,  when  the  news  of  the 
Prince's  advance  made  him  run  from  the  breakfast-table  to  the 
saddle.  Elcho's  cavalry  was  poorly  mounted  on  horses  that  seemed 
to  have  been  picked  up  on  the  way.  The  Highlanders  marched 
in  very  good  order,  their  pipes  playing,  and  the  Prince  halted  for 
a  moment  opposite  Mr  Stafford's  door.  He  wore  the  Highland 
costume,  with  a  blue  waistcoat  bound  with  silver,  and  a  blue 
bonnet.  "  He  was  a  very  handsome  person  of  a  man,  rather  tall, 
and  exactly  proportioned,  and  walks  well."  He  was  received  in 
profound  silence.  The  force  was  stated  by  a  Lowland  officer  at 
10,000,  but  Mr  Stafford  estimated  it,  more  justly,  at  about  6000. 


LORD  GEORGE'S   FEINT.  479 

The  Lowland  officer,  quartered  on  Mr  Stafford,  was  "  exceedingly 
civil " ;  indeed  the  army  behaved  very  well,  though  women  and 
children  lay  about  promiscuously  among  the  privates,  in  a  manner 
which  the  observer  reckoned  untidy.  Glenbucket,  so  forward  in 
17 1 5,  rode  doubled  up  in  his  saddle.  He  was  extremely  old,  and 
was  said  to  have  risen  with  new  life  from  his  bed  when  Charles 
arrived  in  Scotland.  The  private  soldiers,  "  though  dusty  and 
shabby,  appeared  lusty  active  fellows,"  "  almost  all  of  an  age," 
except  a  few  veterans  and  a  number  of  young  boys,  who  were 
expected,  it  was  said,  to  run  under  and  dirk  the  horses  if  they  met 
British  cavalry.  The  Prince  had  but  twelve  small  guns,  English 
and  French,  and  two  mortars.  These  proved  mere  impedimenta^ 
delaying  the  force  on  the  march. 

At  Macclesfield,  says  Lord  George  Murray,  he  learned  that 
Cumberland  was  advancing,  and  that  his  forces  were  at  Lichfield, 
Coventry,  Stafford,  and  Newcastle-under-Lyne.  As  Derby  was 
Lord  George's  objective,  he  led  a  column  to  Congleton,  on  the 
way  to  Lichfield,  to  induce  Cumberland  to  concentrate  there  :  in 
this  he  succeeded,  for  the  Uuke  of  Kingston  and  his  horse  fell 
back  on  Newcastle-under-Lyne,  and  the  enemy  thence  retreated  to 
Lichfield.  Lord  George  then  turned  off  by  way  of  Leek  to  Ash- 
burn,  through  which  the  Prince  passed  on  December  4,  joining 
Lord  George  at  Derby.  Now,  if  we  believe  John  Hay  of  Restalrig, 
in  a  council  at  Macclesfield  Lord  George  was  "  one  of  the  keenest " 
for  the  plan  of  making  forced  marches,  and  cutting  between  the 
Duke  of  Cumberland  and  London.  Hay,  who  was  secretary  of  the 
Prince  in  place  of  the  invalided  Murray  of  Broughton  at  the  end 
of  the  war,  may  be  reckoned  a  hostile  witness  where  Lord  George 
is  concerned.  At  the  same  time,**^  Lord  George's  account  of  his 
own  feint  in  his  march  to  Congleton  proves  his  intention  to  make 
Cumberland  concentrate  at  Lichfield,  and  what  purpose  could  that 
serve,  except  to  enable  the  Prince  to  give  Cumberland  the  slip  and 
march  on  the  capital  ? 

Lord  George's  story  is  that,  at  Derby  on  December  5  (really 
December  4),  he  learned  that  Cumberland  would  enter  Stafford  on 
that  night,  and  Stafford  "was  as  near  to  London  as  Derby." 
Wade's  cavalry  was  advancing  to  Doncaster,  his  infantry  follow- 
ing, and  Lord  George  knew  of  the  formation  of  that  camp  at 
Finchley,  which  has  been  made  immortal  by  the  unflattering  pencil 
of  Hogarth.     The  combined  British  forces  would  be  30,000  men  : 


480  THE   SITUATION    AT   DERBY. 

the  Prince,  says  Lord  George,  had  not  5000.^2  j^  case  of  a  dis- 
aster there  could  be  no  retreat :  the  militia  could  at  least  seize  the 
roads,  while  the  enemy's  cavalry  would  surround  the  army  and 
capture  the  Prince.  But  "  His  Royal  Highness  had  no  regard 
to  his  own  danger,  but  pressed  with  all  the  force  of  argument  to 
go  forward,"  says  Lord  George  ;  and  Maxwell  adds,  "  The  army  never 
was  in  better  spirits  than  at  Derby."  ^^  Maxwell  makes  Lord 
George  foremost  in  pressing  these  two  obvious  arguments  for 
retreat,  and  in  pointing  out  that  they  had  a  strong  reserve  in 
Scotland,  with  Lord  John  Drummond's  men  and  the  force  of 
Strathallan.  As  to  the  French,  it  was  to  Scotland,  not  England, 
that  they  were  sending  troops.  If  the  Prince  advanced  and  fell, 
the  Cause  was  for  ever  ruined. 

Hay  says  that  no  formal  council  of  war  was  held ;  that  he  was 
with  Charles  in  the  Prince's  room  ;  that  Charles  was  just  going  out 
when  Lord  George  stopped  him,  saying  that  most  of  the  chiefs 
were  for  retreat.  "  The  whole  day  was  passed  in  brigtie  and  cabal, 
but  no  council  of  war  was  held."  ^*  Many  years  later,  John  Home 
managed  to  have  definite  questions  in  writing  placed  before  Charles. 
Was  Hay's  story  accurate  ?  Charles  denied  it,  saying  that  a  full 
and  formal  council  of  war  was  held,  and  that  "  all,  except  himself, 
were  of  opinion  that  the  retreat  was  absolutely  necessary.  He 
endeavoured  to  persuade  some  of  them  to  join  with  him,  but 
could  not  prevail  upon  one  single  person."  ^^ 

D'Eguilles,  in  his  Memoirs,  says  that  he  saw  no  overwhelming 
danger  in  the  advance.  He,  personally,  was  in  fact  safe  enough, 
being  no  rebel.  At  the  same  time,  the  Duke  of  Richmond, 
writing  to  Sir  Everard  Fawkener  from  Lichfield  on  the  fatal  day 
of  December  5,  says,  "  If  they  [the  Prince's  army]  please  to 
cut  us  off  from  the  main  army,  they  may  ;  and  also  if  they  please 
to  give  us  the  slip,  and  march  to  London,  I  fear  they  may,  before 
even  this  avant  garde  can  come  up  with  them  :  and  if  we  [they  ?] 
should,  His  Royal  Highness  knows  best  what  can  be  expected 
from  such  an  inconsiderable  corps  as  ours."^ 

Lord  George  Murray,  of  course,  did  not  know  that  Richmond's 
horses  were  worn  out,  that  he  could  not  send  forward  patrols, 
that  the  way  to  London  was  open, — "  there  is  no  pass  to  defend," 
Richmond  wrote;  that  the  camp  at  Finchley  "was  confined  to 
paper  plans'';*'^  and  that  Sir  Watkin  Wynne  was  despatching  a 
messenger  assuring  the  Prince  that  Wales  was  ready. *'^ 


THE   CHIEFS   CAUSE   THE   RETREAT.  481 

London,  on  Black  Friday  (December  6),  was  in  a  panic  :  the 
Jacobites  of  the  city  had  promised  to  rise  and  join  Sir  VVatkin  in 
London,  but  on  that  day  the  Prince's  army,  to  their  intense  disgust, 
were  marching  northwards,  with  cries  of  rage,  says  the  Chevalier 
Johnstone.  What  might  such  men  not  have  done  ?  Their  march- 
ing powers  enabled  them  to  evade  Cumberland ;  their  fighting 
powers,  that,  when  they  were  weakened  by  hunger,  broke  his 
first  line  at  Culloden,  would  have  scattered  his  force  to  the  winds 
if  they  chanced  to  encounter  him.  On  this  point  the  Prince 
never  had  a  doubt,  and  he  knew  that,  after  he  gained  a  victory 
in  the  Midlands,  disaffection  would  mine  the  English  army.  But 
all  military  reasons  —  as  Lord  George  could  not  read  the  minds 
of  his  opponents — were  on  the  side  of  retreat,  so  the  one  chance 
was  lost ;  and  the  last  great  romantic  enterprise  of  Scottish  history 
was  broken,  like  the  heart  of  its  leader. 

It  is  not  without  a  heartache  that  the  historian  accompanies 
a  gallant  army  and  an  undaunted  leader  from  the  gates  of  hope  to 
the  long  march  leading  to  Culloden  Moor,  to  the  scaffold,  to  exile 
and  despair. 

The  charges  of  treachery  which  ignorance  and  ill-will  brought 
against  Lord  George,  a  man  of  fiery  temper  and  unconciliatory 
humour,  but  incapable  of  such  guilt,  are  demonstrated  to  be  false 
by  his  conduct  during  the  retreat.  No  man  was  more  obnoxious 
to  Government  than  Lord  George ;  no  man,  if  taken,  was  more 
certain  to  meet  the  worst  fate  that  the  English  law  of  treason 
could  inflict.  But  he  chose  to  command  the  rear-guard  in  the 
retreat,  and  exposed  himself  to  every  peril ;  while  Charles  was 
no  longer,  as  Lord  George  says  that  he  had  been  in  the  advance, 
the  first  man  astir  every  morning  in  his  camp.  The  Prince  during 
the  retreat  rose  late,  and  then  rode  to  the  van ;  while  Lord  George 
collected  stragglers,  strove  to  repress  pillaging,  and  toiled  to  hurry 
on  the  heavy  and  useless  artillery  with  its  ammunition.  He  chose 
the  Glengarry  men  for  his  rear-guard,  and  though  "  none  of  the 
most  patient,"  they  were  fired  by  his  example  of  laborious  patience. 

By  December  1 2  they  reached  Preston :  they  had  found  the 
Manchester  mob  unfriendly,  conversis  rebus,  and  the  army  itself 
was  discontented — never  reconciled,  says  Maxwell,  to  the  retreat. 
Captain  Daniel  says  that  the  country  was  taught  to  believe  the 
Prince's  army  scattered  and  demoralised,  and  that  savage  attacks 
were   made  on  stragglers.     A  woman  and  her  son  cut  the  throat 

VOL.   IV.  2   H 


482         CHARLES'S  ARMY  OF  THE  NORTH. 

of  a  poor  English  boy  asleep  by  the  roadside,  in  advance  of  the 
army.  As  Charles  refused  to  shoot  a  spy  named  Weir  who  had 
been  captured  by  Lord  George,  and  later  did  much  mischief,  so 
he  declined  to  punish  this  modern  Jael  and  her  son.  The  re- 
treating Highlanders  were  told  that  the  men  of  Strathallan  and 
Lord  John  Drummond  were  on  the  road  to  join  them,  and  were 
in  danger  from  Wade's  army — indeed  a  messenger  had  been  sent 
to  summon  Strathallan  and  Lord  John.  There  was  thus,  thought 
the  army,  good  prospect  of  a  fight,  for  which  they  were  pining. 
If  we  follow  the  narrative  of  Lord  Macleod,  the  forces  under  Lord 
John  and  Strathallan  and  himself  were  considerable  enough  to 
make  a  junction  with  them, — a  plan  not  without  promise. 

"  Besides  the  Mackintoshes,  Farquharsons,  and  my  father's  [Lord 
Cromarty's]  regiment,  a  large  body  of  the  Macdonalds  of  Glengarry, 
of  Clanranald,  and  of  Glencoe,  together  with  a  battalion  of  the 
Camerons,  and  likewise  Barisdale's  regiment"  (Macdonnells),  were 
at  Perth,  while  the  Frasers  kept  dropping  in,  though  Lovat's  son, 
the  Master,  had  not  arrived.  Then  Lord  John  Drummond's  force 
made  a  fair  though  disappointing  show,  though  they  "had  for- 
gotten "  to  bring  mortars,  bombs,  or  engineers.  The  whole  force 
had  Charles's  orders  (which  reached  them  through  Colonel  Mac- 
Lachlan  about  December  18-20)  to  move  south  and  join  him, 
which  the  force  was  eager  to  do,  but  Lord  John  refused  to  obey. 
Now  Charles,  as  we  learn  from  Maxwell,  had  no  news  at  all  from 
Scotland,  as  he  moved  north,  and  might  expect  any  day  to  be 
met  by  an  army  composed  of  the  flower  of  the  fighting  clans,  with 
French  officers.  This  hope  accounts  for,  or  at  least  palliates,  his 
serious  error  in  leaving  a  small  garrison,  doomed  men,  to  keep 
Carlisle  till  his  return  in  full  strength.  But  the  force  at  Perth 
tarried  in  Scotland,  first  because  of  the  ineptitude  of  Lord  John 
Drummond,  an  officer  in  French  service  who  declined  to  imperil 
the  men  and  guns  of  King  Louis ;  next,  because  they  had  to 
oppose  Lord  Loudoun  and  Macleod  of  Macleod  in  their  own 
neighbourhood.'''* 

Lord  Lewis  Gordon  (remembered  in  song — 

"  Send  us  Lewie  Gordon  hame, 
And  the  lad  I  daurna  name  ! ) 

had  been  recruiting  in  the  Gordon  country  ever  since  October  21. 
He  had  threatened  to  punish   "  the  vile  and  malicious   behaviour 


SKIRMISH    OF   INVERURIE.  483 

of  the  Presbyterian  ministers  ...  as  the  law  directs,"  but, 
though  he  wrote  from  Huntly  Castle,  "the  Duke  of  Gordon  sent 
advertisements  to  his  people  not  to  obey  my  orders."  It  was  the 
old  situation  that  baffled  Montrose,  when  Huntly  thwarted 
Aboyne."^  It  was  Lord  Lewis's  purpose  to  meet  and  check 
Loudoun's  force  as  they  crossed  the  Spey,  if  Loudoun  ventured 
south  from  Inverness.  But  Loudoun,  on  the  contrary,  marched 
to  relieve  Fort  Augustus,  which  was  threatened  by  the  Master  of 
Lovat  (December  3).  Loudoun  captured  old  Lovat,  and  took  him 
to  Inverness,  whence  he  escaped  on  December  20,  and  as  he  was 
now  involved,  his  clan  at  length  went  to  join  the  Prince.  Lou- 
doun's next  move  was  to  despatch  Macleod  of  Macleod  with 
Munro  of  Culcairn  to  relieve  Aberdeen,  held  by  the  Laird  of 
Stoneywood  for  the  Jacobites,  Lord  Lewis,  however,  met  and 
routed  Macleod  at  Inverurie,  ten  miles  from  Aberdeen,  and  drove 
him  across  the  Spey,  on  December  23.^^ 

Other  operations  of  the  force  at  Perth  were  the  securing  by 
Lord  Macleod,  with  the  Glencoe  Macdonalds  and  the  Stewarts  of 
Appin,  of  the  passes  from  Stirling  to  the  North ;  and  while  acting 
in  this  service  Lord  Macleod  first  learned,  from  Dr  Archibald 
Cameron,  a  brother  of  Lochiel,  that  the  Prince  had  retreated  as 
far  as  Glasgow."^ 

It  is  thus  plain  that  the  two  divisions  of  the  Prince's  army  were 
in  total  ignorance  of  each  other's  movements,  and  the  hopes  which 
Charles  entertained  of  efiFecting  a  junction  in  England  or  on  the 
Border  with  nearly  half  of  his  army  were  disappointed.  The 
wildest  rumours  had  reached  the  North  :  the  Laird  of  Lonmay 
(December  16)  informed  the  Laird  of  Stoneywood  that  Charles 
was  within  twenty  miles  of  London,  30,000  strong  (the  evidence 
was  'The  Ipswich  Journal'),  that  the  Prince  had  given  Cumberland 
the  slip,  and  that  London  and  all  England  "were  mad  in  favour 
of  the  Prince."''^  Meanwhile  Charles,  having  arrived  at  Preston 
(December  12),  sent  the  Duke  of  Perth  north,  with  Captain  Daniel 
and  a  hundred  horse,  to  bring  up  that  half  of  the  army  which 
was  occupied  at  Inverary  and  Dunblane  in  the  way  already 
•described.  But  Perth  was  stopped  by  the  militia,  and  returned  to 
the  retreating  army  at  Kendal.'^*  At  Lancaster  Charles  delayed, 
and  had  an  idea  of  awaiting  Wade  and  fighting.  Lord  George 
writes  about  this  matter  in  an  injured  tone,  as  if  the  Prince's 
familiars  were  intriguing  against  him  ;   but  Ker  of  Graden,  an  ex- 


484  THE   FIGHT   AT   CLIFTON. 

cellent  officer,  much  commended  by  Lord  George,  says  that  the 
position  was  found  to  be  inadequate. 

The  force  which  Charles  wished  to  meet  was  that  of  the  dilatory 
Wade,  who,  Maxwell  thinks,  might  cut  across  the  Prince's  route  at 
Penrith  with  infantry  as  well  as  cavalry.  The  cavalry  of  Cumber- 
land "  could  never  hurt  foot  that  retired  in  good  order,  and  were 
not  afraid  of  them,"  and,  far  from  fearing,  the  Highlanders  had 
learned  to  despise  cavalry ;  while  Cumberland  could  not  possibly, 
and  Wade  did  not  attempt  to,  bring  up  infantry.  Wade,  in  fact, 
sent  his  cavalry  under  General  Oglethorpe  (brother  of  Fanny 
and  Anne  Oglethorpe)  after  Charles, — they  joined  Cumberland  at 
Preston  on  December  13, — and  retired  with  his  infantry  to  New- 
castle. Captain  Daniel  says  that  as  the  rear  marched  out  of  the 
town  they  could  hear  its  bells  ringing  to  welcome  the  pursuers !  ^^ 
On  leaving  Kendal  (December  17),  Lord  George,  with  the  Glen- 
garry rear -guard,  was  much  detained  by  the  slovenly  delay  of 
Sullivan  in  giving  orders  for  the  mountain  march,  and  by  the 
breakdown  of  transport  and  the  heavy  waggons,  which  were  mere 
encumbrances  :  small  carts  were  needed.  Charles  insisted  on  leav- 
ing no  trophies,  and  cannon-balls  had  to  be  carried  up  Shap  in 
men's  hands,  at  the  ransom  of  sixpence  each.  The  whole  artillery 
was  not,  in  practice,  worth  a  single  coin  of  that  denomination. 

On  December  1 8  the  main  army  reach  Penrith  ;  but  Lord  George, 
sending  the  guns  forward,  was  at  Clifton,  two  miles  short  of  Penrith, 
he  says,  and  thence  marched  to  Lowther  House,  where  he  expected 
to  meet  Cumberland's  light  horsemen.  Cumberland  had  been 
delayed  a  day  by  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  who  was  rendered 
nervous  by  Admiral  Vernon's  account  of  French  movements,  and 
wanted  the  Duke  to  return  to  London. 

Near  Lord  Lonsdale's  house,  Lowther,  Lord  George  captured 
Cumberland's  footman,  who  had  been  sent  forward  to  prepare  his 
master's  quarters.  From  him  and  a  green-clad  militia  officer  Lord 
George  learned  that  Cumberland,  with  Honeywood,  was  about  a 
mile  behind,  with  4000  horse.  He  sent  the  prisoners  and  Colonel 
Roy  Stewart  to  Charles  at  Penrith  ;  he  himself  would  await  orders 
at  Clifton.  Returning  thither,  he  found  that  Perth,  Cluny,  Ardsheil, 
with  Macphersons,  Appin  Stewarts,  and  200  of  Roy  Stewart's  com- 
mand, had  been  sent  back  to  him  :  with  the  Glengarry  men,  he 
had  now  about  1000  of  the  best  of  the  army.  Unknown  to  Lord 
George,  his   movements  were   being   signalled   to  Cumberland   by 


THE   FIGHT   AT   CLIFTON.  485 

Mr  Thomas  Savage,  an  ingenious  Quaker,  who  waved  his  hat 
instead  of  a  signalling  flag  !  The  light  was  not  so  bad  but  that 
Lord  George  could  see  the  enemy  on  the  open  moor,  "about  a 
cannon-shot  away"  (how  long  was  a  cannon-shot?),  in  two  lines, 
broken  into  squadrons.  Lord  George's  position  was  on  either 
side  of  the  road,  and  was  strengthened  by  enclosures  and  hedges. 
Perth  rode  off  to  Penrith  with  an  English  guide,  who  knew  a 
short  concealed  path,  intending  to  bring  back  the  whole  force  from 
Penrith,  to  flank  the  enemy,  and  line  with  musketry  a  long  lane 
through  which  they  would  have  to  pass,  if  they  were  beaten  :  to 
be  sure,  the  Appleby  road  would  also  need  to  be  secured.  Lord 
George  clearly  thought  that,  with  a  thousand  more  men,  and  with 
the  lane  choked  by  fallen  horses,  he  could  annihilate  Cumberland's 
4000  cavalry.  But  Roy  Stewart  brought  back  from  Penrith  the 
news  that  Charles  was  moving  north,  and  desired  him  to  follow. 
,  Perhaps  a  great  opportunity  was  missed ;  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Cumberland  did  not  act  so  foolishly  as  to  charge  with 
cavalry  a  strong  position  held  by  an  unknown  force.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  waited  for  an  hour  while  Lord  George  took  all  means 
to  deceive  him  into  the  belief  that  a  large  force  was  in  position. 
He  marched  his  colours  to  and  fro,  brought  them  back  under  cover 
and  displayed  them  again ;  while  he  posted  the  Glengarry  men  in 
the  enclosures  on  the  right  of  the  road,  and  Appin's  and  Cluny's 
force  on  the  left,  with  Roy  Stewart's  close  to  the  village.  Cumber- 
land, despite  his  audacity  at  Fontenoy,  did  not  make  the  error  of 
leading  4000  horse  along  a  lane  twenty  feet  broad  into  a  death-trap, 
in  the  light  of  a  moon  in  its  second  quarter.  Mr  Thomas  Savage, 
meanwhile,  kept  Cumberland  apprised  of  these  tactics.^**  On  the 
Jacobite  side,  Pitsligo's  horse  had  discreditably  trotted  back  to 
Penrith. 

Cumberland,  with  due  caution,  dismounted  about  500  dragoons, 
who  advanced  from  the  moor  to  the  nearest  of  several  ditches ;  and 
the  dragoons  began  to  "  snipe,"  or  •'  fire  popping  shots,"  at  the 
Highlanders.  To  retreat.  Lord  George  saw,  would  be  ruinous,  for 
the  height  of  the  park  walls  of  the  lane  through  which  he  must  pass 
made  it  impossible  for  him  to  line  them  with  musketeers, — had  he 
a  better  chance  of  lining  the  lane  of  Cumberland's  retreat? — and 
the  enemy,  firing  in  platoons,  would  throw  his  men  into  confusion. 
He  therefore  gave  orders  to  charge  the  dismounted  dragoons,  who 
were  advancing  as  tirailleurs  from  cover  to  cover.      He  forbade  any 


486  GARRISON    LEFT   IN   CARLISLE. 

pursuit  on  the  moor,  and  moved  under  fire  from  the  front  and 
flanking  hedges.  Glenbucket's  targe  was  peppered,  the  bullets 
marked  the  plating  of  steel,  and  a  ball  passed  through  Lord  George's 
hair — "  indeed  the  bullets  were  going  thick  enough."  According  to 
Lochgarry,  who  was  present,  the  enemy  first  attacked  the  Macpher- 
sons,  and  retired  after  a  close  fire.  Next  a  stronger  body  was  sent  to 
assail  both  of  Lord  George's  advanced  bodies :  they  received  the  fire, 
and,  to  quote  Lord  George,  "  I  immediately  drew  my  sword  and 
cried  Claymore!  Cluny  did  the  same,  and  we  ran  down  to  the 
bottom  ditch," — according  to  Macpherson  of  Strathmashie,^'^  swords 
were  broken  on  helmets,  and  the  point  was  used, — "  and  the  rest 
took  to  their  heels,  but  received  the  fire  of  the  Glengarry  regi- 
ment." "^  A  few  Highlanders,  pursuing  against  orders,  were  taken  on 
the  moor,  but  Lord  George  had  disheartened  Cumberland.  There 
was  no  more  attempt  at  attack,  and  after  a  pause  of  half  an  hour 
Lord  George  sent  his  men  on  the  march,  being  himself  the  last  to 
leave  the  field. 

Cumberland  represented  himself  as  driving  the  Highlanders  out 
of  Clifton  ;  but  Lord  George  never  intended  to  stay  there,  and  while 
the  English  published  flourishing  accounts  of  the  slaughter  of  120 
Highlanders,  people  on  the  spot  knew  that  they  had  the  worse  of 
the  ruffle.  A  Mr  Wright  wrote  from  Knutsfort  (December  22): 
"  Notwithstanding  what  is  said,  I  am  apt  to  believe  the  rebels  will  get 
into  Scotland  without  much  loss.  ...  It  may  be  presumed  that 
the  Duke  will  not  care  to  attack  the  main  body  of  the  rebels,"  while 
there  was  no  hope,  he  said,  of  any  opportune  movement  by  Wade. 

On  December  19  the  army,  a  straggling  line  eight  miles  in  length, 
entered  Carlisle  without  opposition.  "  The  Duke  of  Cumberland's 
curiosity  was  satisfied,"  says  Maxwell  grimly  ;  but  a  very  mistaken 
decision  of  Charles  was  to  give  him  his  revenge.  At  Carlisle  Charles 
received  letters  of  old  date  from  Strathallan,  who  said  that  his  army 
"  was  certainly  better  than  that  which  the  Prince  had,"  while  Lord 
John  declared  that  Louis  XV.  wished  Charles  to  avoid  a  general 
engagement  "  till  he  received  the  succours  he  intended  to  send  him, 
which  would  be  such  as  would  put  his  success  beyond  all  doubt."'* 
Maxwell  says  that  a  council  was  held,  and  that  it  was  decided  to 
march  into  Scotland  and  join  Strathallan  and  Lord  John.  C'ontrary 
to  Lord  George's  wish,  Charles  left  in  Carlisle  400  men,  a  third  of 
them  of  the  Manchester  regiment :  Lord  George  was  unable  to  be 
present  when  this  resolve  was  taken,  and  he  could   not  shake  it. 


RETURN    TO   SCOTLAND.  487 

Lord  George  did  not  reckon  Carlisle  tenable  against  artillery  brought 
from  Whitehaven  :  the  French  officers  left  behind  declared  that  it 
was  tenable,  says  Syddal,  Townley's  adjutant ;  and  Charles  expected, 
it  seems,  to  relieve  his  garrison  and  recover  his  own  guns.  Cum- 
berland, opening  fire  on  December  28,  reduced  Carlisle  on  December 
30,  and  took  the  garrison  prisoners  "at  discretion."  Townley  was 
for  resisting  :  it  is  better  to  die  by  the  sword  than  the  gibbet.  The 
hangman  played  his  part  on  many  of  the  prisoners.  Maxwell,  who 
seldom  blames,  censures  the  Prince  for  leaving  the  garrison  at 
Carlisle.  He  declares  that  Townley  and  several  others  "  were  for 
defending  themselves  to  the  last  extremity,  .  .  .  and  they  were 
in  the  right."  The  Governor,  Hamilton,  insisted  on  the  surrender 
to  "  clemency."  As  Captain  Daniel  reports  an  officer  named 
Maxwell  to  have  escaped  over  the  wall  at  night,  it  seems  probable 
that  the  historian  knew  the  man,  and  that  he  speaks  from  good 
knowledge. 

On  December  20  the  army  waded  the  Esk  in  spate.  "  We  were  a 
hundred  men  abreast,  and  it  was  a  very  fine  show  :  the  water  was 
big,  and  took  most  of  the  men  breast-high.  .  .  .  There  was  nothing 
seen  but  their  heads  and  shoulders,"  and  the  modesty  of  the  ladies 
who  had  forded  on  horseback  was  spared,  says  Lord  George.^'' 
Who  were  these  adventurous  ladies  ?  They  are  mentioned  in 
English  letters  of  the  day,  but  they  dwell  only  on  Jessie  Cameron, 
who  stayed  at  home.  Cumberland  returned  to  London  on  January 
5,  1746,  and  Scotland  alone  was  troubled  by  the  death-struggle  of 
the  Cause. 


NOTES  TO   CHAPTER  XVIIL 


^  The  True  Patriot,  1745. 

'^  See  his  letters,  Browne,  Highland  Clans,  ii.  471. 

^  Log  of  Durbe.     Cf.  Une  Famille  Royaliste,  p.  24.     Nantes,   1904.     Edited 
by  the  Due  de  la  Tremoille. 

*  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  203,  204. 

*  Stuart  Papers. 

^  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  p.   5  ;    Lang,  Prince  Charles  Edward 
Stuart,  pp.  99,   100. 

'  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  pp.  157-162,  Scottish  History  Society. 


488  NOTES. 

*  Maxwell,  Narrative  of  Charles,  Prince  of  Wales's  Expedition  to  Scotland. 
Maitland  Club,   1845. 

'  Dates  are  provided  with  accuracy  in  Mr  Blaikie's  admirable  'Itinerary  of 
Prince  Charles,'  Scottish  History  Society,   1897. 

"  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  pp.  106,  107. 

"  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.   173, 

^^  Culloden  Papers,  pp.   210-212. 

^'  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  216,   217. 

'*  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  pp.  176,  177. 

^*  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  pp.  178,  179; 
Molloy's  Letter,  privately  printed. 

^*  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.  185. 

^'  Culloden  Papers,  p.  219. 

^'  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  217-219. 

^'  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  205,  206. 

^  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  p.  84,  note  2. 

^  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  Appendix,  pp. 
513,  514;  D'Argenson,  Memoires,  iii.  67-69. 

^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  221. 

^  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  p.  12,  note  I  ;  Omond,  Lord  Advocates 
of  Scotland,  ii.  15. 

^  Maxwell,  p.  56. 

^  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  Scottish  History  Society,  p.  189,  note. 

"'  Atholl  Papers.      Privately  printed. 

^  Carlyle,  p.  114. 

^  Carlyle,  pp.  Ii2-I2i. 

^  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p.  195. 

^^  Carlyle,  p.  132. 

^^  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p.  200. 

^  Johnstone,  p.  32. 

^  Carlyle,  p.  139  ;  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p.  201. 

"  Cariyle,  p.  140. 

"*  Johnstone,  p.  37. 

'*  Trial  of  General  Cope,  Murray,  p.  203. 

•*'  Maxwell,  p.  41. 

'*  Stuart  Papers. 

^*  Maxwell,  p.  42. 

*"  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p,  205. 

*'  Carlyle,  pp.  148,  149. 

^  Ath.  Jac.  Cor.,  p.  25. 

*^  Jacobite  Correspondence  of  the  Atholl  Family,  p.  2CX3.  Abbotsford  Club, 
1840. 

**  The  orders  are  printed  by  Am^d<5e  Pichot,  Histoire  de  Charles  Edouard : 
cf.  Un  Protege  de  Bachaumont,  by  M.  Paul  Cotlin  (1887),  and  Memoires  of  the 
Marquis  d'Eguilles,  Archives  Litteraires  de  I'Europe,  i.  78-101. 

**  Culloden  Papers,  pp.  222-224. 

^  Culloden  Papers,  p.  225. 

*''  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  pp.  18-23. 

^^  The  Text  in  Browne,  Highland  Clans,  Appendix  XVI. 

■•»  Stuart  M.SS. 

**  Culloden  Papers,  p.  226. 


NOTES.  489 

"  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p.  244. 

''^  Murray  of  Broughton's  Memorials,  p.  242,  note. 

^  Information  from  the  Duke  of  AlhoU,  published  by  Mr  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of 
Prince  Charles,  p.  26,  note  i. 

**  Lon<lon  Gazette  ;  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  p.  27. 

"  Ewald,  Life  of  Prince  Charles. 

^  Fraser,  Earls  of  Cromartie,  ii.  384. 

"  Maxwell,  p.  69. 

•■^^  London  Gazette ;  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of  Prince  Charles,  pp.  28,  29. 

"*  Maxwell,  p.  70. 

*">  This  and  other  local  documents  were  kindly  shown  to  me  by  Mr  MacLehose, 
who  publishes  them  in  the  'Scottish  Historical  Review,'  as  edited  by  Mr  Walter 
Blaikie. 

"  Hay,  in  Home's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  337  (1802). 

^  Lord  George,  in  Robert  Chambers's  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  53,  ff. 

^  Maxwell,  pp.  73,  74. 

'^  Home,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  337,  338. 

^  Home,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  w/  supra. 

**  State  Papers,  Scotland,  vol.  Ivii.     R.O.,  quoted  by  Mahon,  iii.  276. 

•"^  Mahon,  iii.  277. 

«8  Charles  to  James,  Feb.  12,  1747,  Stuart  MSS.     Mahon,  iii.  277. 

''*  Lord  Macleod's  Narrative,  in  Eraser's  Earls  of  Cromartie,  ii.  385,  386. 

""^  Miscellany  of  Spalding  Club,  i.  401-406. 

'^  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  344  ;  Earls  of  Cromartie,  ii.  386. 

''2  Earls  of  Cromartie,  ii.  377,  378. 

^"  Miscellany  of  the  Spalding  Club,  i.  428. 

"^^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  pp.  59,  60,  61  ;  Lockhart  Papers,  ii.  495. 

"  MS.  of  Captain  Daniel. 

^"  His  letter  is  published  by  the  late  Chancellor  Fergusson,  whose  papers  on  the 
Highland  retreat  are  useful. 

"  In  'The  Lyon  in  Mourning.' 

'*  Jacobite  Memoirs,  pp.  68-71  ;  Lochgarry  to  Glengarry,  Blaikie,  Itinerary  of 
Prince  Charles,  pp.  116,  117. 

"»  Maxwell,  p.  87. 

*°  Jacobite  Memoirs,  pp.  74,  75. 


490 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

THE    END    OF   JACOBITISM. 
1745-1746. 

Lord  George's  much -tried  column  marched  by  Lockerbie  to 
Moffat,  where  they  rested,  the  day  being  Sunday,  and  the  troops 
attended  Episcopal  services.  Their  devoutness  was  remarked  on, 
in  England,  even  by  the  most  hostile  observers,  and  at  Derby, 
says  Lord  George,  "many  of  our  officers  and  people  took  the 
sacrament,"  a  battle  being  expected.  There  can  have  been  few 
Presbyterians  in  the  host ;  and  though  the  Macdonalds  were 
probably  Catholics  as  a  rule,  the  Glencoe  men  and  Angus  and 
Perthshire  men  were  chiefly  Episcopalians.  The  Prince  marched 
by  Dumfries  to  Drumlanrig,  Douglas  Castle  (burned  down  in  1758), 
and  Hamilton  Palace,  where,  on  December  26,  he  met  Lord  George, 
who  had  arrived  on  Christmas  Day.  To  avoid  unpleasantness,  the 
Glasgow  and  Paisley  militia  had  been  called  to  Edinburgh,  with 
four  regiments  stationed  at  Stirling,  in  November.  At  Glasgow, 
Charles  heard  of  Lord  Lewis  Gordon's  discomfiture  ;  at  Inverurie, 
of  Macleod,  whose  men's  hearts  were  mainly  with  the  Prince — 
indeed,  Macleod  of  Raasay  and  others  of  the  clan  joined  him  in 
despite  of  their  chief.  Glasgow,  as  a  Hanoverian  town,  was  fined 
to  the  extent  (including  a  previous  forced  contribution)  of  about 
;;^i 0,000,  and  the  men  were  equipped  at  the  civic  expense.  A 
review  was  held,  and  few  men  were  found  to  be  missing — not  over 
fifty,  according  to  Johnstone.  Observers  saw  that  the  Prince  seemed 
dejected,  and  the  ladies  denied  that  he  was  handsome — so  blinding 
is  political  prejudice.  The  Prince  sent  a  gentleman,  Archibald 
Cameron  apparently,  to  Perth  to  consult  the  leaders  of  his  northern 
army,  and  at  Dunblane  Lord  Macleod  met  Archibald,  returning  with 


HAWLEY   ADVANCES   (1746).  49I 

him  to  Glasgow.  When  Macleod  reported  that  Seaforth  was  serv- 
ing the  Government  and  enlisting  the  Mackenzies  against  Charles, 
the  Prince  was  much  moved.  Turning  to  d'Eguilles,  he  said,  "  He  ! 
mon  Dieu,  et  Seaforth  est  aussi  centre  moi ! "  ^ 

On  January  3  the  army  left  Glasgow  for  Stirling,  to  join  hands 
with  Drummond,  Strathallan,  and  Lord  Lewis  Gordon.  Lord 
Macleod  with  much  difficulty,  after  exchanges  of  fire  with  English 
vessels  of  war,  brought  the  French  guns  from  Alloa.  From 
January  4  to  10  Charles  lay  at  Bannockburn  House,  Sir  Hugh 
Paterson's  ;  and  here,  perhaps,  he  met  Sir  Hugh's  niece,  Clementina 
Walkinshaw, — a  tall,  black-eyed  lady  of  no  remarkable  beauty,  to 
judge  by  her  portrait.  Charles  was  suffering,  as  Lord  George  had 
suffered,  from  fatigue  and  exposure,  and  the  situation  may  have 
made  the  charms  of  Miss  Walkinshaw  irresistible.  This  is  the 
traditional  story.  The  Prince's  account -books  prove  that  he 
purchased  his  own  provisions  at  Bannockburn  House,  as  every- 
where else.  Possibly  the  owner  was  not  at  home, — he  does  not 
appear  in  the  list  of  rebels ;  and  Miss  Walkinshaw  may  have  been 
met  elsewhere  by  Charles.  Whether  she  now  became  his  mistress  or 
not  is  therefore  doubly  uncertain, — no  contemporary  record  names 
her, — but  several  years  later  she  joined  him  in  the  Low  Countries, 
with  results  disastrous  to  herself,  the  Prince,  and  the  Cause. 

The  northern  levies  now  at  last  came  in,  some  4000  men,  while 
Hawley,  with  ten  battalions  of  foot,  Cobham's  dragoons,  and  a 
reputation  for  ferocity,  arrived  in  Edinburgh.  On  January  8  the 
town  of  Stirling  surrendered ;  but  General  Blakeney  held  the  Castle, 
against  which  the  guns  and  engineering  skill  of  Charles's  officers 
were  quite  helpless.  On  January  13  Lord  George  had  news  of 
Hawley's  advance,  and  marched  his  five  battalions,  with  the  horse 
of  Elcho  and  Pitsligo,  to  Linlithgow.  He  found  some  of  Hawley's 
dragoons,  pursued  them  for  a  short  way,  and  returned  to  Linlithgow, 
followed  by  the  dragoons  with  four  regiments  of  foot.  Lord  George 
crossed  the  bridge,  northwards,  intending  to  attack  when  half  of  the 
hostile  force  had  passed  over ;  but  they  were  too  cautious  to  give 
him  the  opportunity,  and  he  returned  to  Falkirk,  and  thence  to 
Bannockburn. 

Hawley  was  soon  at  Falkirk,  in  camp,  while,  four  miles  away, 
the  Prince's  army  lay  in  scattered  cantonments,  and  could  not  be 
readily  concentrated.  Lord  George,  who  knew  the  ground  well, 
proposed   to   advance   "  above " — that  is,  as  Maxwell  explains,  on 


492  FALKIRK   FIGHT. 

the  west  side  of — the  Torwood,  where  the  army  could  not  be  seen. 
A  third  column  went  by  the  high  way  :  they  crossed  the  Carron 
water,  which  was  low,  some  two  miles  from  Hawley's  position, 
about  one  o'clock,  while  Hawley,  suspecting  nothing,  was  lunch- 
ing with  Lady  Kilmarnock.  They  then  deployed  on  the  moor, 
and,  in  order  of  battle,  faced  to  the  left  and  ascended  the  hill 
which  lay  between  them  and  the  enemy.  In  the  first  line  the 
Macdonalds  held  the  right,  which  they  claimed  as  their  due  ever 
since  the  battle  of  Bannockburn,  and  the  Camerons  were  on  the 
left.  In  the  second  line  were,  on  the  right,  the  AthoU  men,  who, 
it  is  to  be  observed  (though  they  behaved  admirably  in  the  ensuing 
battle),  were  not  very  willing  warriors.  Lord  George  had  written 
from  Falkirk,  on  January'  ii,  to  his  brother,  TuUibardine,  that  he 
heard  of  many  desertions  in  the  AthoU  ranks.  "  For  God's  sake 
send  the  men  off,  if  it  were  but  by  dozens,  as  quick  as  you 
can  ;  ...  if  rewards  and  punishments  do  not  do,  I  know  not  what 
will."  On  January  i6  (the  battle  was  on  January  17)  Lord  George 
wrote  to  TuUibardine,  "  We  are  quite  affronted  by  the  scandalous 
desertion  of  your  men."^ 

None  the  less  AthoU  was  well  represented  in  the  Prince's  second 
line.  On  its  left  were  Lord  Lewis  Gordon's  men, — perhaps  600  or 
700, — with  Lord  Ogilvy's  in  the  centre.  In  the  third  line  were  the 
mounted  men,  Elcho's,  Pitsligo's,  Balmerino's,  and  Kilmarnock's, 
with  Lord  John  Drummond  and  his  details  from  the  French  army.^ 
1200  men  were  left  at  Stirling  to  contain  Blakeney,  and  the  Appin 
Stewarts,  Frasers,  Macphersons,  and  other  clans  filled  the  centre  of 
the  first  line,  between  the  Macdonalds  and  Camerons.  This  line, 
the  first,  was  double  the  length  of  the  other  two,  which  were  spaced 
out  "  with  very  large  intervals  between  their  centre  and  wings."  * 

As  the  fighting-ground  consisted  of  convex  slopes  with  ravines, 
it  would  and  did  follow  that,  in  the  second  and  third  lines,  the 
ofiicers  could  not  see  how  the  bulk  of  their  own  lines  was  engaged. 
The  hill-top  was  approached,  while  Hawley,  who  supposed  the 
Prince  to  be  holding  a  review  at  Bannockburn,  was  more  or  less 
taken  by  surprise.  The  appearance  of  the  small  third  column — all 
that  he  could  see — on  the  high  road  gave  him  no  uneasiness.  As 
soon  as  he  knew  the  truth,  that  the  Prince  was  making  for  the  hill- 
top in  force,  he  arrayed  his  army,  with  1000  Argyll  men  some  9000 
in  all,  on  the  plain  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  between  him  and  Charles. 
In  his  two  lines  were  thirteen  battalions  of  regulars  :  three  regiments 


FALKIRK    FIGHT.  493 

of  dragoons  were  on  his  left,  and,  to  their  sorrow,  behind  the 
dragoons  were  the  militia  of  Glasgow  and  Lothian,  while  the  Camp- 
bells were  on  the  right  of  the  regulars.  Maxwell  reckons  Hawley's 
force  at  10,000  to  12,000  men.  Hawley  advanced  his  dragoons 
at  first  in  small  parties  till,  says  Maxwell,  their  line  was  half  the 
length  of  the  Prince's  first  rank.  John  Home,  who  was  present 
as  a  volunteer,  gives  the  same  account.  The  left  of  the  dragoons 
was  opposite  Keppoch's  clan,  the  right  was  opposite  the  Fraser 
centre.  Most  of  the  English  foot  were  standing  on  the  slope  of  the 
hill,  a  few  were  on  level  ground  above  that  slope. 

The  left  of  the  Highland  first  line,  the  Camerons  and  Appin 
Stewarts,  saw  only  infantry  confronting  them,  while  the  Macdonalds 
saw  none  but  cavalry.  A  ravine  separated  Hawley's  right  from 
the  Frasers  and  Camerons  of  the  Prince's  left,  and  a  great  storm 
of  wind  and  rain  made  the  whole  face  of  the  battle  but  dimly 
visible.  Neither  army  had  been  able  to  bring  up  their  guns  r 
Hawley's  were  stuck  in  a  bog,  and  the  haste  of  the  Highlanders  to. 
seize  the  hill -crest  caused  them  to  leave  theirs  a  mile  behind. 
Between  hurry,  surprise,  darkness,  rain,  and  the  nature  of  the 
ground,  the  battle  became  a  slovenly  and  bedraggled  scuffle  :  the 
Highland  second  line  had  no  general  commander,  and  each  chief 
knew  not  what  his  neighbours  were  doing. -^  Hawley  bade  Ligonier's, 
with  the  cavalry,  advance,  and  Lord  George,  sword  in  hand  and 
targe  on  arm,  marched  in  front  of  Keppoch's  men,  regulating  the 
line,  and  bidding  them  hold  their  fire  till  he  gave  the  order.*" 
Within  pistol-shot,  each  force  advancing,  he  gave  the  word  to  fire, 
whereon  Hamilton's  and  Ligonier's  horse  wheeled  about  and  fled 
straight  back,  while  Cobham's,  wheeling  to  their  right,  crossed  the 
Camerons'  and  Frasers'  front,  and  took  their  fire.  Lord  George  was 
aware,  from  the  intelligence  of  Roy  Stewart,  and  of  Mr  Anderson, 
who  showed  the  path  at  Prestonpans,  that  the  cavalry  opposed  ta 
him  had  no  infantry  in  their  rear."  But  he  could  not  check  the 
Macdonalds  :  they  pursued  the  dragoons,  came  among  the  miserable 
Glasgow  volunteers,  and  washed  their  swords. 

The  Prince's  left,  having  discharged  their  pieces  at  Cobham's 
horse,  now  found  Hawley's  infantry  in  their  front.  They  had  no 
cartridges,  only  powder  in  horns  or  loose  in  their  sporrans,  and  they 
could  not  load  again,  so  heavy  was  the  rain.^  They  received  the 
fire  of  the  infantry,  and  went  in  with  the  cold  steel,^  but  they  were 
flanked  by  some  battalions  which  wheeled  into  that  position,  and 


494  FALKIRK   FIGHT. 

were  shaken  by  their  fire.  Meanwhile  many  of  the  second  line 
had  followed  the  first  in  their  wild  pursuit,  and  the  rest  fell  into 
confusion,  shunned  to  attack  the  steadier  of  Hawley's  troops,  and 
withdrew.  Lord  George  avers  that  the  AthoU  men,  his  own,  kept 
perfect  good  order,  and  he  sent  Ker  of  Graden  to  bring  up  the 
reserve  and  annihilate  such  of  Hawley's  troops  as  maintained  their 
discipline.  But  the  pipers  had  given  their  pipes  to  their  gillies  and 
taken  to  the  sword,  and  this  "turned  to  our  vast  loss,"  as  there 
was  no  means  of  recalling  the  scattered  men.  Thus  Hawley's 
ofificers  had  time  to  lead  away  some  regiments  in  an  orderly  retreat, 
and  a  large  body  of  dragoons  on  Hawley's  right  "made  directly 
for  the  Prince,  who  was  advancing  with  the  pickets  to  sustain  the 
Highlanders,  but  the  countenance  of  the  little  corps  checked  their 
impetuosity,"  says  Maxwell.  It  was  necessary  for  Charles  to  enter 
and  hold  Falkirk,  his  men  being  thoroughly  drenched,  worn  out, 
and  possessing  no  tents,  and  no  beds  but  the  soaked  ground.  He 
marched  in  unopposed,  young  Gask  and  Strathallan's  eldest  son 
having  scouted  in  peasant's  attire,  with  the  pickets  and  the  AthoU 
men,  and  Hawley's  camp  was  plundered.  But  the  flower  of  the 
army,  lost  in  the  darkness,  passed  the  night  in  the  fields,  and  to 
organise  a  pursuit  of  Hawley  towards  Linlithgow  was  impossible. 
The  complete  destruction  of  Hawley's  force  was  averted  by  lack 
of  discipline,  and  Lord  George  blames  SuUivan,  as  he  always  does, 
for  not  bringing  up  men  from  the  second  and  third  lines  to  extend 
the  first,  and  Charles  for  neglecting  his  own  advice  to  a  similar 
effect.  On  the  other  hand.  Sir  Thomas  Sheridan,^°  Macdonald  of 
Morar,  in  the  *  Lockhart  Papers,'  and  Johnstone  agree  in  saying 
that  Charles  extended  his  line  to  the  left  and  encouraged  his  forces, 
while  Maxwell's  account  is  to  the  same  effect.  "The  presence 
of  Charles,"  says  Home,  "  encouraged  the  Highlanders  "  (after  the 
severe  fire  sustained  on  their  left)  ;  "  he  commended  their  valour," 
rallied  and  led  them,  so  that  Cobham's  dragoons,  who  were  renewing 
their  advance,  turned  tail,  and  covered  the  retreat.  But  Home  is 
not  speaking  of  what  he  saw,  and  he  may  have  read  Maxwell's 
manuscript.  The  stress  of  battle  lasted  only  for  twenty  minutes, 
from  3.50  to  4.10  p.M.^^  Home  severely  blames  Hawley  for 
bidding  some  800  dragoons  charge  an  army  on  unknown  ground, 
and  quotes  Mr  Stuart  Mackenzie,  a  brother  of  Lord  Bute's,  to  the 
effect  that  Ligonier,  on  receiving  the  order,  carried  by  Mackenzie 
himself,  said   that   it  was  "the  most   extraordinary  ever  given," — 


INACTION   AFTER   FALKIRK.  495 

or  looked  as  if  he  thought  it  was.^^  Home  also  quotes  Colonel 
Hepburn,  who  had  heard  Hawley  say  that  the  Highlanders  "  could 
not  stand  against  a  charge  of  dragoons  who  attacked  them  well." 
But  it  does  not  seem  that  the  dragoons  did  attack  with  the  fury  of 
men  who  mean  to  come  to  the  shock. 

The  example  of  the  battle  of  Falkirk  suggests  that,  had  Charles 
been  allowed  to  advance  from  Derby,  his  men  could  have  driven 
Cumberland's  army  like  chaff  before  the  gale,  as  they  drove  Hawley's. 
Had  Cumberland  better  cavalry  than  Ligonier's,  Hamilton's,  and 
Cobham's  ?  or  better  infantry  than  the  Royals,  Wolfe's,  Chol- 
mondeley's,  Pulteney's,  Price's,  Blakeney's,  Munro's,  Fleming's, 
Barrel's,  and  Howard's?  The  Highlanders  could  easily  outmarch 
any  Hanoverian  force,  and  might  have  cut  them  off  from  their 
guns.  There  seem  many  chances  that  the  Prince  could  have 
pulverised  Cumberland's  command,  and  advanced  to  meet  an 
unformed,  terrified,  and  disaffected  force  near  London,  while  Wade 
was  put  out  of  action  by  his  senile  slowness  and  irresolution.  The 
Prince  may  have  reflected  sadly  on  this  aspect  of  his  victory ;  but 
Lord  George  says  that  the  best  Highland  officers,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  actually  discouraged  by  the  circumstances  of  their  new 
success,  and  thought  that  they  stood  little  chance  in  any  future 
fight,  except  by  advantage  of  ground  or  by  a  surprise,  both  of  which 
the  alacrity  of  their  men  might  have  been  trusted  to  secure.  In  spite 
of  all  that  they  had  seen  of  regular  troops,  they  sighed  for  their  aid ; 
but  now  there  was  absolutely  no  appearance  of  a  French  landing. 

Hawley  had  left  some  400  dead  on  the  field,  besides  hundreds 
of  prisoners,  while  Maxwell  reckons  the  Highland  losses  at  about 
forty.  Wolfe's  regiment  lost  five  captains,  Blackwell's  four,  and 
Sir  Robert  Munro,  with  four  lieutenant-colonels,  was  slain.  In 
Edinburgh  the  Whigs  were  discouraged,  for  many  of  the  defeated 
were  the  men  of  Dettingen  and  Fontenoy.  But  in  the  Prince's 
camp  there  were  disappointment  and  dispute  :  the  quarrel  of  the 
officers  from  France,  as  against  Lord  George,  waxed  keen.  Thus 
no  advantage,  beyond  the  capture  of  Hawley's  artillery,  useless  to 
the  Highlanders,  was  gained  from  the  victory.  Maxwell  says  that 
some  advised  to  push  on  to  Edinburgh,  which  looks  the  most 
obvious  course ;  others  to  invade  England  again  ;  but  Lord  George 
stayed  at  Falkirk,  Charles  returned  to  Bannockburn,  and  Perth 
continued,  with  weak  guns  and  an  engineer  worse  than  useless, 
the  siege  of  Stirling  Castle.     About  the  cause  of  this  inaction  Lord 


496  DEATH   OF   THE   GLENGARRY   LEADER. 

George  and  Maxwell  tell  us  nothing,  and  we  ask  ourselves  whether 
Charles  found  his  Capua  in  the  society  of  Clementina  Walkinshaw. 
There  is  not  a  hint  of  that  affair  in  the  evidence,  and  we  may  pre- 
sume that  the  Prince  was  anxious  to  push  his  advantage.  Nothing 
was  more  clear  than  that  the  Highlanders  could  best  be  kept  with 
the  colours  by  novel  adventure  and  the  prospect  of  a  fight.  But 
to  advance  meant  the  abandonment  of  his  own  guns  and  Hawley's, 
and  his  guns  seem  to  have  been  the  fetish  of  the  Prince.  Maxwell 
suggests  that  his  unwillingness  to  part  with  these  things,  trophies 
rather  than  arms,  with  a  flattering  report  by  Mirabel,  the  foolish 
French  engineer,  kept  Charles  besieging  Stirling  Castle. 

This  part  of  the  campaign  is  scarcely  explicable,  except  on  the 
score  of  the  fatigue,  ill -temper,  jealousy,  and  quarrels  that  vexed 
the  camp.  Among  other  causes  of  resentment  was  the  accidental 
shooting  of  young  ^neas  Macdonnell,  leader  of  the  Glengarry  men, 
by  the  discharge  of  a  musket. ^^  Though  the  misfortune  was  purely 
accidental,  as  late  as  182 1  it  is  represented  as  wilful,  in  the  "Vin- 
dication" (p.  13)  put  forth  by  Sir  Walter  Scott's  friend,  the  Laird 
of  Glengarry,  against  the  claims  of  Clanranald  to  the  chiefship.  The 
charge  is  intelligible  among  an  excited  soldiery ;  the  perseverance  in 
the  charge  is  a  strangely  late  survival  of  ill-feeling.  The  spirit 
of  the  injured  clan  in  general  may  be  gathered  from  a  letter 
written  to  Blair  of  Glasclune  by  Robertson  of  Struan,  uncle  of 
^neas  Macdonnell.  He  speaks  of  "the  murder  committed  on 
my  nephew.  His  enemies  are  too  plain  to  doubt  of  the  authors 
of  the  murder.  .  .  .  The  gentleman's  growing  worth  made  him 
envied  by  Beggars  and  hated  by  Traytors."  Unless  the  Clanranalds 
are  aimed  at,  as  ^^neas  was  shot  accidentally  by  one  of  that  clan, 
on  whom  is  the  fiery  Celt  reflecting?^* 

Lochgarry,  in  a  report  of  the  whole  enterprise  to  young  Glengarry 
(dated  by  Mr  Blaikie,  who  published  it,  about  1747).  niakes  no- 
accusation  against  the  unlucky  man  who  fired  the  shot.  "The 
melancholy  and  misfortunate  accident  of  your  brother's  death  hap- 
pened, who  was  adored  and  regretted  by  H.R.H.  and  the  whole 
army.  His  death  really  dispirited  the  whole  Highlanders  very 
much.  During  this  time  there  was  a  general  desertion  in  the 
whole  army."  ^^  The  man  who  fired  the  musket  was  of  Clan- 
ranald's  contingent :  his  death  was  demanded,  and  the  two  chief 
portions  of  Clan   Donald  were  thus  set  at  variance. 

Meanwhile   Cumberland   was    hurrying    north,    and    Ilawley,    at 


ALLEGED   DESERTIONS.  497 

Edinburgh,  was  reinforced.  Charles  was  determined  to  encounter 
Cumberland,  but  was  met  by  the  report  of  the  chiefs  that  the  army 
was  depleted  by  desertions,  and  that  retreat  was  necessary.  This 
was  the  final  blow  to  the  chances  of  the  Cause,  and  the  circum- 
stances are  not  easily  intelligible,  except  on  the  theory  that  internal 
discords  had  broken,  for  the  time,  the  spirit  of  the  Prince's  chief 
supporters.  As  we  shall  see,  there  are  facts  which  suggest  that  the 
amount  of  the  desertions  was  greatly  exaggerated.  Maxwell  is  a 
thoroughly  honourable  and  candid  witness,  who  wrote  as  soon  as 
possible  after  the  failure  of  the  enterprise.  He  is,  as  his  editor 
says,  "  exempt  from  many  prejudices  and  short-sightednesses  to 
which  his  party  were  liable.  He  generally  takes  rational  views  of 
the  means  at  the  command  of  the  Prince  in  the  various  stages  of  his 
extraordinary  career."  ^"^  Maxwell,  then,  avers  that,  on  January  26, 
Charles  reviewed  his  whole  army,  and  that  no  more  than  500 
were  missing.  This  was  eight  days  after  the  shooting  of  yEneas 
Macdonnell ;  but  Maxwell  intimates  that  desertions  continued  after 
the  review  of  January  26,  On  January  28  Charles  sent  Murray  of 
Broughton  to  Lord  George  at  Falkirk,  announcing  that  he  would 
attack  Cumberland  there,  where  Lord  George  was  to  remain. 
"Lord  George  seemed  to  approve  of  everything,  drew  up  a  new 
plan  of  battle  with  some  improvements  upon  the  former,  and  sent 
it  next  day  [January  29]  to  the  Prince  for  his  approbation," 
Charles  was  extremely  pleased,  but  "  that  very  night  he  received  a 
representation,  signed  at  Falkirk  by  Lord  George  Murray  and  all 
the  commanders  of  clans,  begging  his  Royal  Highness  would  con- 
sent to  retreat,  on  account  of  the  great  desertion  [of  2000  men] 
that  had  happened  since  the  battle."  ^^ 

Had  1500  men  deserted  between  January  26  and  the  day, 
January  29,  when  Lord  George,  anxious  to  fight  in  the  morning, 
sent  in  a  surly  memorial  in  the  afternoon  ?  This  is  barely  con- 
ceivable, yet  the  memorial  is  dated  on  Friday,  January  29.^^^  The 
chiefs  say  that  *'//  is  but  just  now  we  are  apprised  of  the  numbers 
of  our  own  people  that  are  gone  home,"  or  are  invalided.  Four 
Macdonalds  sign,  with  Ardsheil,  the  Master  of  Lovat,  Lochiel, 
and  Lord  George.  How  could  officers  so  experienced  have  remained 
in  ignorance,  and  then  been  enlightened  within  two  or  three  hours  ? 
Maxwell  declares  that  at  Crieff,  after  a  disorderly  flight,  the  army  was 
but  1000  under  its  strength.^^  He  believes  that  the  Highlanders, 
in    fact,    had    been    sauntering    about    the    villages    near     Falkirk, 

VOL.  IV.  2  I 


498  QUARREL  OF   PRINCE   AND   CHIEFS. 

had  not  deserted  or  thought  of  deserting,  and  came  in  to  their 
colours  as  the  army  hurried  northwards.  If  all  this  be  true,  the 
army  is  free  from  serious  blame ;  but  the  chiefs  can  scarcely  escape 
the  charge  of  lax  observation  and  the  burden  of  an  unwise  and 
fatal  decision,  loyal  and  courageous  as  they  undeniably  proved 
themselves.  Lord  Mahon,  whose  account  of  the  affair  of  1745 
is  among  the  best,  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  evidence  of 
Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell.  He  says  that  the  chiefs,  mortified  by 
Charles's  loss  of  confidence  in  them  since  Derby,  and  determined 
to  assert  their  own  authority,  "  sent  in  the  memorial  advising 
retreat.  .  .  .  Lord  George  Murray  was  no  doubt  the  secret  mover 
of  the  whole  design."  ^ 

If  this  view  were  correct,  Charles's  distrust  of  Lord  George  could 
not  be  called  inexcusable.  The  retreat  was  the  worst  possible  step, 
and  we  would  rather  attribute  it,  with  Maxwell,  to  want  of  intelli- 
gence as  to  the  whereabouts  of  the  missing  clansmen  than  to  jealous 
intrigue.  Three  weeks  earlier  (January  6),  when  Charles  was  at 
Bannockbum,  Lord  George  had  sent  in  a  memorial  demanding  that 
operations  should  be  conducted  by  a  committee  of  five  or  seven, 
chosen  by  a  council  of  some  seventeen, — a  method  which,  in 
war,  has  seldom  prospered.  Councils  would  have  saved  a  day  at 
Lancaster,  would  not  have  left  a  garrison  at  Carlisle,  and  did  save 
the  army  from  "  a  catastrophe "  by  retreating  from  Derby.  The 
"  catastrophe "  would  probably  have  occurred  to  the  army  of 
Cumberland,  we  may  conjecture. 

The  Prince  replied  that  he  was  vested  with  all  the  authority  the 
king  could  give  him,  and  was  now  to  be  limited,  without  even  a 
casting  vote,  to  hearing  debates.  He  was  told  that  his  army  were 
volunteers ;  from  them  he  expected  more  zeal,  more  discipline,  and 
more  courtesy  than  from  mercenaries.  "  It  can  be  no  army  at  all 
where  there  is  no  general."  He  alone,  as  a  price  was  set  on  his 
head,  could  not  "threaten  at  every  word  to  throw  down  his  sword." 
He  took  advice  every  day ;  above  all,  he  took  Lord  George's  advice. 
His  authority  "might  be  wrested  from  him  by  violence;  he  would 
never  resign  it  like  an  idiot."  ^^  We  have  seen  that  Hay's  account 
of  what  occurred  at  Derby  is  refuted  by  that  of  Charles.  As  to  Lord 
George's  new  proposal  to  retreat.  Hay  says  that  Charles  received 
it  while  dressing  in  the  morning  after  the  night  when  he  received 
and  rejoiced  in  Lord  George's  plan  of  battle.  Charles  dashed  his 
head  against  the  wall :  "  his  words  were,  '  Good  God,  have  I  lived 


THE   PRINCE   PROPHESIES   THE   END.  499 

to  see  this  day  ! ' "  and  he  exclaimed  violently  against  Lord  George. 
But  in  public  Charles  kept  his  temper.  In  a  letter,  sent  through 
Sheridan,  the  Prince  argued  temperately  that  retreat  encouraged  the 
enemy  and  discouraged  his  army;  implied  a  constant  series  of  similar 
withdrawals ;  made  it  certain  that  neither  France  nor  Spain  would 
move  to  his  assistance ;  and  compelled  the  Lowlanders  to  seek  the 
hills  or  be  captured.  Nevertheless,  *'  having  told  you  my  thoughts, 
I  am  too  sensible  of  what  you  have  already  ventured  and  done  for 
me  not  to  yield  to  your  unanimous  resolution  if  you  persist."  ^^ 

Thus  on  January  30,  a  fatal  day,  Charles  submitted  to  Lord 
George,  and  the  Macdonald,  Fraser,  and  Appin  Stewart  com- 
manders. On  these  gentlemen,  not  on  him,  lies  the  merit  or 
demerit  of  a  plan  which  gave  Cumberland's  army  what  they  lacked 
— confidence,  and  months  wherein  to  practise  new  tactics  fitted  to 
resist  the  Highland  onset ;  a  plan  which  withdrew  the  army  from  a 
region  of  plenty  to  a  land  notoriously  destitute  of  supplies.  The 
scheme  enabled  Cumberland  to  use  sea  power,  to  bring  up  his 
supplies  with  expedition,  and  to  waylay  what  French  succours  might 
be  sent  in  food  and  money.  At  Falkirk  Charles's  men  were  in 
good  heart,  Cumberland's  were  fresh  from  defeat ;  Charles's  force 
had  enough  to  eat ;  in  case  of  the  worst  they  could  as  readily 
escape,  as  some  of  them  had  deserted,  to  safe  places  in  the  hills. 
Sheridan  carried  Charles's  letter  to  the  chiefs  at  Falkirk,  and  brought 
back  Keppoch,  with  others,  to  debate  the  point  at  Bannockburn. 
It  is  probable  that  the  meeting  was  stormy. 

When  it  was  ended  Charles  wrote  again  to  the  chiefs  who  had 
not  been  present.  He  says  that  Cluny  and  Keppoch  will  have  com- 
plained to  them  of  his  "despotic  temper."  He  will  "explain  him- 
self more  fully," — "  /  can  see  nothing  but  ruin  and  destruction  to  us 
in  case  zve  should  think  of  a  retreat."  It  is  plain  that  Cluny  and 
the  rest  had  only  spoken  of  retiring  nearer  to  the  Forth,  for  the 
Prince  says  that  the  next  proposal  will  be  to  cross  the  Forth  :  so 
far,  then,  this  had  not  been  decided  upon.  Forth  will  be  crossed, 
Stirling  will  fall ;  it  will  be  impossible  to  remove  the  guns.  They 
are  running  away  from  an  enemy  whom  they  had  just  defeated. 
Charles  now  knows  that  he  has  lost  command  of  the  army.  "  I 
take  God  to  witness  .  .  .  that  I  wash  my  hands  of  the  fatal  con- 
sequences which  I  foresee  but  cannot  help."  -^  No  prophet  ever 
foresaw  more  clearly  the  results  of  a  course  on  which  military 
critics  have  alone  a  right  to  be  heard.     But  if  Maxwell's  evidence  is 


500  THE   ROUT. 

correct, — if  the  chiefs  desired  to  withdraw  only  on  account  of  de- 
sertions which  they  very  greatly  overestimated,  while  an  hour  before 
their  decision  Lord  George  had  been  in  high  heart  and  ready  to 
fight, — Charles  proved  himself  what  Macdonald  of  Morar  calls  him^ 
"  the  best  officer  in  his  army,"  The  whole  situation  is  bewilder- 
ing. If  the  obedience  of  the  men  to  their  chiefs  was  so  exemplary, 
why  did  the  men  desert  ?  If  they  did  desert,  why  was  Charles  left 
without  information,  while  Lord  George  approved  of,  and  improved 
upon,  his  plan  for  battle?  If  the  men,  in  fact,  had  not  deserted, 
what  must  be  said  of  the  chiefs  who  supposed  that  they  had  gone 
off  to  their  mountains  ? 

The  retreat  began  on  February  i,  and  was  disorderly  and  mis- 
chievous. Cumberland's  men  burned  down  Linlithgow,  that  ancient 
royal  palace.  Charles's  Highlanders  managed  in  some  way  to  blow- 
up St  Ninian's  Church.  If  we  believe  Maxwell,  a  Life  Guardsman, 
the  army  was  to  be  reviewed  between  Bannockburn  and  Stirling,  and 
the  Prince  went  to  the  place,  hoping  to  find  that  the  amount  of  deser- 
tion had  been  exaggerated.  "  There  was  hardly  the  appearance  of 
an  army."  The  men,  having  heard  of  the  designed  retreat,  thought 
the  danger  greater  and  nearer  than  it  was,  and  hurried  to  the  Fords 
of  Frew ;  even  the  troops  quartered  in  Stirling  took  the  alarm,  and 
rushed  off  before  the  hour  determined.  Guns  were  spiked  and 
abandoned  :  it  was  a  rout  where  no  enemy  pursued.-*  Lord  George 
insists  on  the  discreditable  rout,  and  attributes  it  to  Sullivan,  who 
did  not  give  the  orders  with  which  he  was  charged,  but  "sent 
very  different  ones."  Here  Ker  of  Graden  corroborates,  probably 
on  Lord  George's  authority. 

In  short.  Lord  George  says  that  "  they  "  at  Bannockburn — and 
"  they "  must  include  Charles — altered  the  order  after  he  himself 
withdrew,  and  bade  the  army  march  by  daybreak.  "  I  shall  say  no 
more  of  this, — a  particular  account  of  it  is  wrote.  I  believe  the 
like  of  it  was  never  heard  of."^^  The  "particular  account,"  in  a 
privately  printed  work  by  the  present  Duke  of  Atholl,  adds  little 
to  our  information,  but  we  have  the  version  of  Maxwell,  which  bears 
probability  on  its  face.  The  news  of  the  retreat  was  sure  to  spread 
among  "the  common  men":  undisciplined  as  they  were,  they  were 
apt  to  hurry  away.  The  Prince,  so  tenacious  of  his  artillery,  and 
so  reluctant  to  retreat,  is  not  likely  to  have  given  orders  for  a 
stampede  at  dawn.  Maxwell  says  that  Lord  George,  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  early  flight,  might  have  been  taken  in  his  ([uarlers 


THE   RETREAT.  5OI 

by  a  sally  from  the  Castle.  Can  Lord  George  have  fancied  that 
the  stampede  was  deliberately  arranged  on  purpose  that  he  might 
be  taken,  and  so  put  out  of  the  way  ?  On  the  next  day  there  was 
a  council  of  war  at  Crieff.  Lord  George  "  complained  much  of  the 
flight,  and  entreated  we  should  know  who  advised  it.  The  Prince 
did  not  incline  to  lay  the  blame  on  anybody,  but  said  he  took  it  on 
himself."  ^^  If  this  be  true,  and  if  Maxwell's  tale  be  true,  Charles 
behaved  well,  putting  a  stop  in  an  urbane  manner  to  a  wrangle.  If 
Charles  meant  that  he,  through  Sullivan,  ordered  the  flight,  we  are 
at  a  loss  for  his  motive.  In  a  letter  of  February  4  to  TuUibardine, 
who  was  invalided.  Lord  George  attributes  the  precipitancy  of  the 
flight  to  "some  fatal  mistake." ^'^ 

The  truth  is  that  the  leaders  of  the  army  were  in  the  worst  of 
tempers  :  we  know  from  Captain  Daniel's  MS.  that  there  was  for 
long  a  coldness  between  Lord  George  and  Lord  Balmerino,  who 
commanded  part  of  the  Prince's  Guards,  while  Balmerino  himself 
was  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  irritation  of  Lord  George.  D'Eguilles 
writes  that  the  Prince  communicated  to  him  his  distrust  of  Lord 
George,  which  d'Eguilles  owns  that  he  shared.  The  suspicion 
grew,  and  possessed  the  minds  of  the  few  English  adventurers,  such 
as  Captain  Daniel  of  Balmerino's  mounted  Guards ;  yet  there  is 
not  to  be  discovered  a  single  fact  which  is  not  to  the  credit  of 
Lord  George's  honour  and  loyalty.  The  dissensions  all  contributed 
to  the  end  which  Charles  predicted  when  the  chiefs  insisted  on 
retreat.  Lord  George,  writing  to  TuUibardine  (February  5),  regrets 
that  "we  did  not  make  a  stand  at  Crieff",  for  I  scarce  think  the 
enemy  would  have  attempted  anything  this  winter  had  we  done 
gQ»28  j^Q^y  jl^g  Prince,  when  retreat  was  first  proposed,  asked, 
"  Can  we  hope  to  defend  ourselves  at  Perth,  or  keep  our  men 
together  there  better  than  we  do  here?"  Too  late  Lord  George 
seems  to  have  seen  the  force  of  this  reasoning,  and  regretted  that 
they  did  not  make  a  stand  at  Crieff".  In  fact,  the  Prince,  with  the 
clans,  marched  north  by  the  Highland  way,  while  Lord  George,  with 
Lord  John  Drummond,  took  the  coast  road,  making  first  for  Perth, 
with  many  of  the  mounted  men.  Spanish  arms  and  stores  had 
landed  at  Peterhead, — "a  vast  many  of  them," — and  were  being 
brought  south  by  the  exertions  of  Lord  Pitsligo.-^ 

While  Lord  George  was  advancing  on  Aberdeen,  the  Prince 
moved  to  Blair  Castle,  in  Atholl :  Glenbucket  took  the  fortalice 
of  Ruthven,  in  Badenoch,  defended  by  the  Irish  sergeant  at  the 


502  THE   ROUT   OF   MOY. 

beginning  of  the  expedition,  and,  on  February  i6,  Charles  went 
to  Moy,  the  seat  of  the  Mackintosh  chief,  a  Hanoverian  with  an 
energetically  Jacobite  wife.  The  Prince  was  in  advance  of  his 
forces,  and  Lord  Loudoun,  who,  with  Macleod,  was  commanding  at 
Inverness  for  King  George,  heard  of  Charles's  arrival,  and  planned 
his  capture  by  a  night  surprise.  The  dowager  Lady  Mackintosh, 
at  Inverness,  saw  the  preparations  being  made,  and  sent  a  boy, 
Lachlan  Mackintosh,  to  go  in  advance  of  Loudoun's  column  and 
give  warning  at  Moy.  Cutting  across  country,  the  lad  reached  Moy 
at  about  five  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Lady  Mackintosh  was  roused, 
the  Prince  decamped  to  the  side  of  the  loch,  and  the  hostile  column 
never  arrived  at  Moy.  Lady  Mackintosh  had  four  or  five  scouts 
out,  among  them  her  blacksmith.  They  uttered  cries  to  the  Mac- 
donalds  to  come  up,  as  if  the  clans  were  present  in  force,  and  the 
blacksmith,  Fraser,  firing  from  cover,  shot  Macleod's  hereditary  piper, 
MacRimmon.  On  this  the  other  Macleods,  whose  hearts  were  not 
in  their  work,  fled  back  to  Loudoun's  main  column,  and  so  alarmed 
them  that  they  hastily  retreated  to  Inverness.  This  affair  was  called 
the  Rout  of  Moy  :  following  the  Rout  of  Inverurie,  and  preceding 
the  retreat  of  the  Macleod  chief,  with  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  to  Skye, 
it  did  not  add  laurels  to  his  chaplet.^ 

At  the  time  of  the  rout  Cumberland  was  ordering  a  Hessian 
force  of  some  5000  men  to  Perth  and  Stirling,  and  two  regiments 
of  horse  to  Bannockburn.  He  had  to  provide  against  the  chance 
that  the  Prince  would  turn  and  slip  past  him  to  the  south,  which 
was  the  strategy  recommended  to  Charles  by  d'Eguilles.  It  might 
have  ended  in  a  second  Worcester ;  but  anything  was  better  than 
lingering  in  a  country  so  destitute  of  supplies  as  the  north.  As  for 
the  Hessians,  they  were  substitutes  for  the  neutralised  Dutch.  They 
landed  at  Leith  on  February  8  :  the  foolish  retreat  from  Stirling 
had  thus  enabled  Cumberland  to  add  them  to  his  forces.  These 
Hessians  had  been  in  French  service,  were  captured  by  the  Austrians 
in  April  1745,  and  were  purchased  by  King  George  in  July  of  the 
same  year.  Versatile  as  they  were,  they  objected  to  serve  in  a  war 
where  prisoners  were  treated  as  they  were  by  Cumberland,  and 
where  British  officers  captured  by  Charles  broke  their  parole  at 
Cumberland's  command. ^^ 

After  making  these  dispositions,  Cumberland  went  to  Perth. 
From  Moy,  when  his  troops  had  come  up,  Charles  advanced 
to    Inverness,    where    the    castle    surrendered    on    February    20. 


OPERATIONS    IN    THE   NORTH.  503 

Loudoun  had  decamped,  and  was  later  pursued  into  Sutherland. 
He  had  no  chance  of  going  south  and  joining  hands  with  Cum- 
berland, for  Lord  George  had  cantoned  his  main  force  between 
Aberdeen  and  the  north  coast  towns,  by  dint  of  marches  rendered 
arduous  by  tempests  of  snow.  At  Culloden  House,  on  February  19, 
he  met  the  Prince,  who  was  under  the  roof  of  the  fugitive  President 
Forbes.  Lord  George  wished  to  make  requisition  of  5000  bolls  of 
meal  in  the  northern  Lowlands,  and  send  it  into  the  hills  to  support 
the  army  if  they  drew  Cumberland  into  the  mountains,  but  Charles 
preferred  to  have  the  supplies  deposited  at  Inverness.  By  this 
time  Cumberland  was  approaching  Aberdeen,  which  he  entered 
on  February  2  7  ;  while  Lord  George  went  into  Ross  -  shire  to 
disperse  Loudoun's  army, — a  service  in  which  he  found  Lord 
Cromarty  inactive  and  destitute  of  intelligence.  Lord  George 
quartered  the  flower  of  the  fighting  clans  within  a  day's  march 
of  Inverness  and  of  Tain,  and  returned  to  Inverness.^- 

Charles  had  three  things  in  view, — to  disperse  Loudoun,  to  retain 
hold  of  the  coast  between  Inverness  and  Aberdeen,  and  to  reduce 
Fort  William  and  Fort  Augustus  on  the  west.^^  The  last  step  was 
necessary,  because  only  by  the  west  coast  had  he  a  chance  of 
obtaining  money,  which  was  now  very  scarce,  and  other  aid  from 
France.  The  money  arrived,  after  Culloden,  too  late.  Early  in 
March  his  general,  Stapleton,  took  Fort  Augustus :  the  imbecile 
French  engineer  who  failed  at  Stirling  was  discarded,  and  Mr 
Grant,  in  French  service,  directed  the  operations,  in  which  the 
Highlanders  showed  great  courage.^*  At  this  time  the  Prince  was 
very  ill  at  Elgin,  and  Murray  was  also  invalided  :  he  never  saw 
the  Prince  again  till  many  years  after  all  hope  was  over.  Hay  took 
his  place,  and,  on  all  hands,  is  accused  of  incompetent  manage- 
ment of  supplies,  in  which  his  worst  enemies  admit  that  Murray 
excelled.^^ 

Fort  William  was  not  to  be  taken  like  Fort  Augustus.  It  was 
much  stronger,  with  a  good  wall,  ditch,  counterscarp,  bastions,  and 
ravelin,  while  Lochiel's  men,  who  eagerly  attempted  the  attack,  had 
only  6-pounder  guns.  Nevertheless  Grant  might  have  succeeded, 
by  aid  of  a  hill  to  the  south-east  which  commanded  the  place,  but 
he  was  hurt  by  a  cannon-ball,  and  the  foolish  Mirabel,  sent  from 
Inverness,  failed  as  usual.^  Succours  from  France  were  on  their 
way,  but  only  three  troops  of  horse  (Fitzjames's)  and  a  picket  of 
Berwick's    regiment    succeeded    in    landing.      Cumberland,    mean- 


504  SUCCESSES  OF  LORD  GEORGE. 

while,  tarried  at  Aberdeen,  while  Loudoun  kept  evading  the  High- 
landers by  crossing  and  recrossing  the  Dornoch  Firth,  as  he  had 
command  of  boats.  At  the  same  time,  between  Aberdeen  and  the 
north  there  were  movements  of  Cumberland,  who  nearly  surprised 
500  of  Charles's  men  at  Strathbogie.  However,  Balmerino's 
mounted  guards  behaved  well  as  a  rear -guard,  and  checked 
Cumberland's  horse  at  the  crossing  of  the  Deveron.  The  force 
retired  on  Keith  and  Fochabers,  and  a  Major  Glasgoe,  by  an 
ingenious  stratagem,  a  feigned  retreat  and  a  night  march,  surprised 
a  party  of  Campbell's  and  thirty  of  Kingston's  horse  at  Keith. 
Scarce  any  escaped,  after  a  brisk  resistance,  in  which  two  of 
Cumberland's  officers  fell.  The  rest  were  taken  prisoners.^^ 
Maxwell  appears  to  have  been  present,  and  highly  commends  the 
conduct  of  the  Highlanders  when  surprised  at  Strathbogie,  and  in 
the  retreat  and  attack.  They  remained  in  good  heart  with  the 
colours,  when  threatened  by  a  vastly  superior  force — eight  battalions, 
two  regiments  of  dragoons,  and  four  guns.  The  Highland  leader 
was  Colonel  Roy  Stewart,  whose  coolness  gave  courage  to  his 
men  (March   17). 

On  the  same  day  Lord  George,  with  his  AthoU  troops  and  Cluny 
Macpherson,  marched  thirty  miles  south  to  surprise  Argyll  High- 
landers guarding  posts  in  Atholl.  He  had  700  men,  and  so  well 
disposed  them  that  he  took  thirty  small  posts,  two  parties  of 
regulars,  and  secured  the  Pass  of  Killiecrankie  against  an  advance 
of  the  Hessians.  Macpherson  of  Strathmashie  avers  that  in  the 
spoils  he  found  an  order  of  Cumberland's  forbidding  quarter  to  be 
given.  Cluny  kept  the  original,  and  Strathmashie  took  a  copy. 
The  success  was  due  in  great  part  to  Cluny's  skill  in  stopping  the 
passes  through  Badenoch,  so  that  the  Hanoverians  in  Atholl 
expected  nothing  less  than  an  attack  by  Lord  George.^  The 
prisoners,  300,  were  mainly  Argyll  men  and  details  of  Loudoun's 
regiment.  In  daylight  Lord  George  undertook  "a  work  I  was 
by  no  means  fond  of" — firing  his  family's  castle  of  Blair  with 
red-hot  bullets.  He  found  his  cannon  bad,  and  was  more  in- 
clined to  reduce  his  brother's  castle  by  a  blockade.  In  this  fruit- 
less effort  he  persevered  for  a  fortnight,  skirmishing  with  dragoons 
and  hussars  at  Pitlochry,  and  attempting  to  negotiate  a  cartel  for 
prisoners  on  both  sides  with  the  Prince  of  Hesse,  from  whom 
he  received  no  reply.  The  Hessians  now  advanced  to  within 
two  miles  of  Pitlochry. 


"THE   FINEST    PART   OF   THE   EXPEDITION."  505 

Lord  George  desired  to  hold  the  Pass  of  Killiecrankie,  but  urgent 
despatches  bade  him  return  to  Inverness ;  and  on  April  2  he  began 
to  retire  to  the  Spey,  while  Cluny  and  his  clan  remained  to  hold 
the  passes  of  Badenoch.*-*  Lord  George  had  thus  been  most 
actively  engaged,  having  only  "  four  hours'  honest  sleep  in 
seventy,"  and  it  is  almost  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  been 
suspected  of  disloyalty.  But  the  rancours  of  Falkirk,  and  things 
which  those  who  distrusted  him  always  declined  to  commit  to 
writing,  were  not  forgotten.  A  beaten  cause  takes  refuge  in  the  cry, 
Nous  sotnme  trahis  I  and  Lord  George  was  made  the  scapegoat, — 
for  example,  Captain  Daniel  hints  at  unworthy  suspicions,  though 
himself  an  honest  and  good-humoured  man.  During  Lord  George's 
AthoU  raid,  Lord  Loudoun's  force — a  constant  source  of  danger  and 
irritation — was  driven  out  of  the  north  at  last.  All  the  fishing-boats 
on  the  coast  of  Moray  were  brought  to  Findhorn,  and  the  Laird 
of  Stoneywood,  who  had  been  so  energetic  an  aid  of  Lord  Lewis 
Gordon,  took  a  force  in  a  dark  night  across  the  Moray  Firth  and, 
favoured  by  fog,  arrived  at  Tain  to  join  the  Duke  of  Perth.  His 
courtesy  induced  him  to  lose  time  in  a  parley  with  an  ofificer  of 
Loudoun's,  and  that  leader,  with  Forbes  of  Culloden,  Macleod,  and 
most  of  their  men,  scattered  before  Perth  came  upon  them,  the 
chief  men  making  their  escape  to  Skye.**^ 

At  this  point  Maxwell  not  unjustly  observes  that  the  success  of 
these  operations,  conducted  by  a  force  of  8000  men,  on  many 
different  lines  and  over  a  vast  extent  of  country,  constitute  "  the 
finest  part  of  the  Prince's  expedition,  and  best  deserve  the  attention 
of  judicious  readers."  At  Fort  Augustus,  Fort  William,  at  Blair, 
in  the  Strathbogie  country,  and  in  Ross-shire  and  Sutherland,  the 
Prince's  officers  were  operating,  as  a  rule  with  success,  while  he, 
"as  it  were  in  the  centre,  thence  directed  all  operations."  How 
far  the  "  direction  "  was  that  of  Sullivan  and  d'Eguilles,  how  far  of 
Lord  George,  it  would  be  hard  to  say.  But  the  inveterate  good- 
nature of  Charles,  displayed  again  and  again  in  his  pardoning  of 
dangerous  spies  like  Weir,  and  of  murderers  of  his  stragglers,  did 
him  no  service  when  he  refused  to  burn  down  Blair  Castle  in  his 
northern  retreat.  The  castle  had  been  the  very  heart  of  Montrose's 
campaign  :  perhaps  Charles  spared  it  in  the  interests  of  TuUibardine 
and  Lord  George.  But  both  of  these  gentlemen  were,  as  TuUi- 
bardine wrote  (March  26),  ready  to  sacrifice  their  ancestral  home 
and  the  portraits  of  their  forefathers  "  to  the  country's  safety  and 


5o6  AT   CULLODEN 

the  Royal  Cause."  ^^  It  appears  that  even  TuUibardine  had  shared 
the  dissatisfaction  with  Lord  George :  he  says  that  as  his  brother 
"  has  been  lately  behaving  according  to  dutiful  sentiments^  nobody  is 
more  satisfied  than  I  am  of  your  indefatigable  activity  for  public 
service  "  (March  30,  from  Inverness).^^  There  had  been  a  difference 
between  the  brothers,  probably  arising  from  the  coldness  between 
Lord  George  and  the  Prince,  after  the  retreat. 

No  courage  and  activity  could  stave  off  the  day  of  ruin.  The 
money  of  Charles  was  exhausted ;  the  men  were  paid  in  oatmeal ; 
and  ;!^i  2,000  in  Spanish  gold,  conveyed  in  the  Hazard  sloop,  were 
seized  by  Lord  Reay's  Mackays,  when  the  sloop  was  forced  by  four 
English  cruisers  to  run  ashore  at  Tongue  (March  25).^^  Many 
men  now  went  to  their  homes,  where  they  could  obtain  food, 
though,  as  Maxwell  says,  they  were  bent  on  rejoining  when  their 
services  were  needed.  Some  were  too  late, — one  of  many  causes 
which  reduced  the  Prince's  army  at  CuUoden.  It  was  also  un- 
fortunate that  Lord  Cromarty,  Lord  Macleod,  Barisdale,  and  other 
leaders,  were  sent  north  to  recover  the  ^12,000  from  Lord  Reay, 
and  raise  men  and  supplies  in  Caithness  and  Sutherland.  Fifteen 
hundred  good  men  went  in  this  expedition,  Cromarty  was  captured 
at  Dunrobin  House,  and  Barisdale,  with  many  stout  Macdonalds,, 
did  not  return  in  time  for  the  last  battle. 

There  was  now  certain  news  that  the  French  meant  to  send  no 
reinforcements ;  but  the  Prince,  says  Maxwell,  put  a  gay  face  on 
ruin,  and  gave  several  balls  at  Inverness,  dancing  himself,  though 
he  had  not  done  so  at  Edinburgh.  He  still  meant  to  march  on 
Aberdeen  and  meet  Cumberland,  who,  driving  back  the  Duke  of 
Perth  and  Lord  John  Drummond,  crossed  Spey  unopposed  on 
April  12,  reached  Nairn  on  the  14th,  and  rested  his  men  there 
on  his  birthday,  April  15.  On  April  14  Charles  concentrated  such 
forces  as  he  had  at  CuUoden,  where  Lord  George  "  did  not  like  the 
ground," — a  flat  moor,  unsuited  to  Highland  tactics.  He  preferred 
the  other  side  of  the  Nairn,  as  hilly  and  marshy,  but  the  Prince  did 
not  wish  to  leave  open  Inverness,  with  the  remainder  of  his  poor 
supplies.*^  According  to  a  narrative  in  'The  Lyon  in  Mourning,' 
the  ranks  were  very  thin,  as  was  natural,  for  the  retreat  from  Stirling 
had  not  brought  in  more  men  than  Charles  had  at  Falkirk,  when 
they  were  thought  to  be  too  few.  Now,  says  Ker  of  Graden,  with 
other  eye-witnesses,  they  had  but  a  biscuit  apiece.^''  In  the  after- 
noon a  council  determined  to  surprise  Cumberland's  camp,  though 


THE   ATTEMPTED   SURPRISE.  507 

the  men  were  scattering  in  all  directions  to  look  for  food.  Of  this 
there  was  plenty  at  Inverness,  says  Maxwell,  but  Hay  mismanaged 
the  commissariat.  According  to  Maxwell,  Lord  George  proposed 
the  surprise  :  he  certainly  approved  of  it,  as  he  says,  but  was  less 
confident  when  he  found  the  men  so  few  in  numbers.^*' 

The  Prince,  however,  was  eager ;  and  they  started,  Lord  George 
in  the  van.  As  to  what  occurred,  accounts  are  contradictory  and 
confused.  Lord  George  says  that  after  a  six  miles'  march  over  a 
very  bad  road,  he  decided  that  they  would  be  too  late  for  an  attack 
in  the  dark.  By  Hay's  account,  Charles  rode  up,  while  Lord  George 
was  deciding  to  retreat,  and  declared  that  he  was  betrayed.  In  1759 
Charles  informed  James  that  Clanranald  was  actually  in  touch  with 
Cumberland's  outposts,  and  thought  the  attack  feasible.*^  But  Clan- 
ranald must  have  been  far  in  advance  of  the  van,  as  the  van  was 
far  in  advance  of  the  rear.  In  old  age  Charles,  in  answer  to  an 
inquiry  from  Home,  said  that  he  rode  up  "  to  the  front,"  and  was 
convinced  by  Lord  George  that  retreat  was  necessary.  But  Lord 
George,  writing  to  Hamilton  of  Bangour  in  May  1749,  says  that 
Charles  was  a  mile  behind,  and  could  not  join  him  and  the  officers 
in  the  van,  so  dark  was  the  night,  save  by  riding  through  the  dense 
line  in  a  narrow  way.  Lord  George's  evidence  is  three  years  after 
the  event ;  that  of  Charles  was  written  in  his  old  age.^  Certain  it 
is  that  Lord  George  and  all  the  leaders  present  ordered  the  retreat 
without  Charles's  knowledge ;  but  Charles  may  have  ridden  *'  to  the 
front"  when  the  van  marched  back,  and  fken  been  convinced,  as 
he  says  he  was,  by  Lord  George's  arguments.  Charles  may  have 
spoken  hastily  in  Hay's  hearing,  when  Hay  brought  the  first  news 
of  the  retreat.  But  his  sentiments  must  have  been  changed  at 
once,  for  Ker  of  Graden  sought  out  the  Prince  after  the  defeat  of 
the  following  day,  who  "  inquired  anxiously  for  Lord  George,  and 
desired  Colonel  Ker  to  find  him  out  and  take  particular  care  of 
him."*» 

Lord  George  was  much  and  most  unjustly  blamed  by  the  non- 
military  Jacobites,  but  it  is  certain  that  he  only  did  his  duty  in  this 
affair.  Yet  Captain  Daniel,  who  was  in  the  rear  with  Charles  in 
the  dark,  was  by  no  means  convinced  of  his  good  faith.  He  is 
more  trustworthy  when  he  says  that  he  himself  could  have  led  the 
army  by  a  much  shorter  way,  and  Maxwell  speaks  of  the  route  taken 
as  the  result  of  "  infatuation."  Doubtless  the  purpose  was  to  avoid 
some  houses,  whence  a  messenger  might  have  been  sent  to  Cum- 


5o8  LORD  GEORGE'S  ERROR. 

berland,  but  it  would  not  have  been  difficult  to  seize  the  people 
in  these  cottages.  The  surprise  had  no  effect  except  to  exhaust 
the  hungry  men  who  made  it.  The  leaders  met,  all  equally  sullen, 
says  Maxwell,  at  CuUoden  House,  where  a  little  bread  and  whisky 
was  served  out  to  them.  Ker  of  Graden  scouted,  and  he,  like  a 
lieutenant  of  the  Camerons  who  was  left  behind  when  the  force 
returned,  reported  the  advance  of  Cumberland.  Sullivan  arrayed 
the  army  on  the  moor,  but  Lochgarry  reports  that  Lord  George 
insisted  in  placing  his  AthoU  regiment  on  the  right,  contrary  to 
the  request  of  Lochgarry,  Scothouse,  and  Keppoch,  who  led  the 
Macdonalds.  Lord  George  says  nothing  about  this  perverse  dis- 
position of  the  line,  for  the  claim  of  the  Macdonalds  was  traditional, 
and,  if  the  AthoU  men  had  any  claim,  it  must  have  been  in  virtue 
of  the  Stewart  clan  in  the  region.  Maxwell,  the  most  fair  and 
clear-headed  of  all  the  contemporary  writers  who  were  present, 
corroborates  Lochgarry.^  Lochgarry  says  that  he  heard  Charles 
say  that  he  "  resented  it  much,"  and  indeed  Lord  George  appears 
to  have  made  here  his  one  serious  error,  unless  we  reckon  among 
errors  the  retreat  from  Falkirk,  The  hungry  Macdonalds  were 
angry  Macdonalds,  and  we  shall  show  reason  to  suppose  that  they 
did  not  advance  with  their  usual  ^lan,  though  we  find  no  con- 
temporary evidence  for  the  surly  refusal  of  which  they  were 
later  accused.  Lord  George  avers  he  told  Sullivan  that  the 
position  chosen  was  unsuitable,  and  that  it  was  better  to  occupy 
the  hilly  ground  reconnoitred  by  Ker  of  Graden  on  the  previous 
day.  But  to  do  this  left  the  road  to  Inverness  open,  and  Cum- 
berland could  easily  have  contained  the  Highlanders,  and  sent 
cavalry  to  destroy  the  stores  at  Inverness,  This  is  obvious,  and 
Lord  George  himself  saw  that  the  ground  was  chosen  to  prevent 
the  occupation  of  Inverness.  The  Prince,  without  supplies,  could 
not  march  into  the  naked  hills  and  wage  a  guerilla  campaign. 

As  to  the  battlefield,  it  seems  now  hard  to  speak  with  cer- 
tainty about  details.  A  new  road,  not  on  the  same  line  as  the 
old,  has  been  made  through  Drummossie  moor  ;  new  plantations 
have  arisen  on  the  Highland  right,  old  enclosure  walls  have  been 
destroyed,  marshes  have  been  drained.  It  is  a  point  given  by 
Lord  George  that  the  Highland  right  was  within  300  paces  of  the 
water  of  Nairn,''^  while  here  they  were  flanked  by  an  enclosure 
wall  which  the  Campljcll  auxiliaries  pulled  down  during  the  action. 
The  Well  of  the  Dead  and  marshy  ground,  under  a  slight  but  steep 


FORCES   AT   CULLODEN.  509 

elevation  of  the  soil,  traditionally  mark  the  place,  on  Cumberland's 
left,  where  the  fighting  was  fiercest.  Cumberland  himself,  in  his 
despatch  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  (Inverness,  April  18),  says 
that,  after  reconnoitring,  he  found  the  rebels  "  posted  behind  some 
old  walls  and  huts  t>t  a  line  with  Culloden  House."  ^^  He  does 
not  say  whether  the  line  was  at  right  angles  to  or  parallel  to  the 
front  of  the  house  ;  but  if  the  Highland  right  were,  as  Lord  George 
says,  within  300  yards  of  the  Nairn  water,  Cumberland  must  mean 
at  right  angles.^^ 

As  to  the  fight  itself,  while  a  general  effect  can  easily  be  sketched, 
many  details  remain  obscure.  Cumberland  had  881 1  men,  of 
whom  641 1  were  regular  infantry,  with  about  1000  Argyll  High- 
landers and  Loudoun's  regiment,  and  Bland's,  Cobham's,  and  Lord 
Mark  Ker's  horse.  He  had  also  eighteen  guns,  which  were  well 
served.  His  men  were  well  fed, — on  the  previous  day  they  had 
enjoyed  a  feast ;  and  they  had  been  specially  drilled  in  a  method 
of  giving  the  bayonet  so  as  to  deceive  the  parry  of  the  Highland 
targe.  General  Bland  had  also  trained  his  men  in  bayonet  exercise 
against  broadsword.  (Major  Hamilton,  in  General  Simcoe's  'Ob- 
servations on  Home,'  p.  22  (1802).)  Their  drill  was  perfect,  and 
they  had  the  strongest  confidence  in  the  commander,  whom  they 
afTectionately  styled  "  Billy."  The  Highlanders  had  not  more  than 
5000  men  engaged,  according  to  their  Muster-master,  PatuUo  ;  and 
the  men  were  starved  and  fatigued  by  the  long  night-march,  while 
there  was  discontent  and  clan  jealousy  as  to  the  position  on  the 
right  wing.  Here  Lord  George  led  his  Atholl  men,  to  the  anger  of 
the  Macdonalds.  Lord  George,  in  one  version,  describes  the  fight 
in  very  few  words,  merely  saying  that  the  Highland  left,  led  by  him- 
self, "  broke  in  upon  some  regiments  in  the  enemy's  left";  that  these 
broken  regiments  received  instant  support ;  that  while  their  fire  was 
reinforced  by  discharges  of  grape,  his  horse  appeared  to  be  wounded, 
so  he  dismounted,  and  brought  up  two  regiments  of  his  second  line. 
These  gave  their  fire,  "  but  nothing  could  be  done  ;  all  was  lost."  ^^ 

Maxwell  gives  the  composition  of  the  two  lines  :  the  first  had 
the  Atholl  men  on  the  right,  the  Camerons,  Appin  Stewarts,  John 
Roy  Stewart,  Frasers  (all  of  them  had  not  arrived).  Mackintoshes, 
Farquharsons,  Macleans,  Macleods,  Chisholms,  Clanranald,  Keppoch, 
Glengarry's  men,  and  the  Duke  of  Perth. ''^  In  the  second  line 
were  the  few  horse,  Glenbucket,  French  Royal  Scots  (a  few),  Lord 
Lewis  Gordon,  French  picquets,  and  Fitzjames's  few  French  horse. 


510  CULLODEN. 

Lord  Ogilvy's  men  were  a  thin  reserve.     The  Prince  was   in  the 
centre. 

Cumberland  says  that  forty  of  Kingston's  horse  and  the  Argyll 
men  found  the  Highland  left  "making  a  motion  towards  us  on 
our  left,"  when  he  formed  his  ranks.  A  body  of  his  horse,  with 
the  Campbells,  then  moved  under  a  hollow  on  the  Highland  left, 
and  pulled  down  the  walls  during  an  interval  of  artillery  preparation, 
in  which  the  Prince's  guns  did  little  or  no  damage,  while  those  of 
Cumberland  caused  much  loss.  By  breaking  the  walls  the  horse 
could  outflank  the  Highland  right  and  threaten  the  second  line 
and  rear.  Lord  George,  says  Maxwell,  perceiving  the  flanking 
movement,  sent  Avuchie's  battalion  to  stop  it  too  late.  Lord 
George  then  sent  the  few  Guards  and  Fitzjames's  horse  to  his 
own  extreme  right  to  oppose  the  dragoons,  and  both  parties  halted, 
separated  by  a  deep  hollow.^ 

The  Campbells  lost  a  few  men  at  this  time,  and  now  the  Prince 
bade  Lord  George  advance.  He  delayed,  for  what  reason  Maxwell 
knew  not, — an  aide-de-camp  was  shot  in  carrying  an  order,  it  is  said, 
— and  then  the  Highlanders  cried  to  be  led  on.  "The  order  was 
no  sooner  given  on  the  right  than  obeyed."  ^^  The  Prince  had 
expected  Cumberland  to  attack,  as  a  tempest  of  wind  and  of  snow 
was  blowing  on  the  backs  of  his  men  and  the  faces  of  the  clans, 
so  Ker  of  Graden  reports.  The  storm  may  have  caused  confusion, 
but  Ker  says  that  Lord  George  sent  him  to  the  Prince  to  ask  leave 
to  charge,  and  Ker's  is  the  best  possible  evidence.  The  Prince 
despatched  Ker  with  the  order,  which  he  communicated  first  to 
the  Highland  left,  the  Macdonalds,  telling  the  Duke  of  Perth,  who 
commanded  there,  to  begin  the  attack.  Ker  did  this  because  the 
Highland  right  was  more  advanced,  nearer  the  enemy  than  the 
Macdonalds,  and,  to  make  the  assault  simultaneous,  the  left  must 
begin.  To  protect  his  own  right,  Cumberland  says  that  he  sent 
Kingston's  horse,  a  squadron  of  Cobham's,  and  Pulleney's  regiment 
to  support  it.  "The  whole  [Highland]  first  line  came  down  to 
attack  at  once,"  and  Cumberland,  on  his  own  right,  saw  the  High- 
land left  (the  Macdonalds)  come  down  "three  several  times  within  a 
hundred  yards  of  our  men,  firing  their  pistols  and  brandishing  their 
swords,  but  the  Royals  and  Pultcney's  hardly  took  their  firelocks 
from  their  shoulders,  so  that  after  these  faint  attempts  they  moved 
off,  and  the  little  squadrons  on  our  right  were  sent  to  pursue 
them."  '>8 


ERR  A  TUM. 

P.  510,  11.  4  to  6;  p.  524,  1.  17;  p.  525,  1.  13.— In 
these  passages,  for  "  the  Highland  left "  read  "  the  High- 
land right." 


-t- 


^  ^  ci  i;  a  i^  "^  rm 
2    rm     \ 


n       ^?^ 


A 


;?>.' 


1.  JtoyalJlrmif 

2.  He&el  Jirmt/ 

3.  CavaZrj/  w'^IIaM'lej/ 

A-   WaUs  ^^y  ^roke  dou/ny 

5    2  JPla£oonj  cfJiryyle  MilUuz- 

X   W/iere  the  ffotiest  of  the  tuiion.  was 

Dolled  line  .  Road  to  I/wernesj 


000.  Water  of  jyiurrv. 


nil  Guns.        uCamzl/y      cn/r?/an//y 


COLONEL  YORKE'S   SKETCH   OF   CULLODEN.     Reduced  by  half. 
Add,  MSS.,  British  Museum,  35,354,  f.  222. 


{Drawn  April  18,  1746.) 


CULLODEN.  511 

Colonel  Joseph  Yorke,  writing  to  Lord  Hardwicke  (April  18), 
gives  the  same  account  as  Cumberland.  The  Highland  charge 
"  broke  from  the  centre  [the  Mackintoshes]  in  three  large  bodies 
like  wedges.  ...  In  the  meantime  that  wedge  which  was 
designed  to  fall  on  our  Right,  after  making  three  feints  as  if 
they  were  coming  down  on  us,  in  order  to  draw  our  fire,  seeing 
that  our  Right  kept  shouldered  with  the  greatest  coolness,  and 
that  three  squadrons  were  moving  towards  their  flank,  followed 
the  example  of  their  right  wing  and  fled  for  it."^^  Lord  George 
Murray  corroborates  :  "  The  left  wing  did  not  attack  the  enemy,  at 
least  they  did  not  go  in  sword  in  hand,  imagining  they  would  be 
outflanked  by  a  regiment  of  foot  and  some  horse  which  the  enemy 
brought  up  at  that  time."^  No  allowance  is  made  for  the  fiery 
grape  against  the  Highland  left. 

This  account  by  Yorke  and  Cumberland,  who  were  on  the  spot, 
and  as  between  Jacobite  clan  and  clan  had  no  prejudice,  decides 
the  question  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  Macdonalds.  They  attacked 
at  once,  but,  being  outflanked,  and  under  a  heavy  fire  of  grape 
(see  Appendix,  "  The  Death  of  Keppoch  "),  they  did  not  come  to 
the  shock.  The  narrative  of  Colonel  Whitefoord  (who  stood  alone 
by  Cope's  guns,  and  fired  them  at  Prestonpans)  corroborates  the 
versions  of  Cumberland,  Yorke,  and  Lord  George  Murray.  "Their 
right  column,  and  the  left  of  our  line,  shocked  at  one  corner  of  the 
park  of  Colwhineach.  Nothing  could  be  more  desperate  than  their 
attack,  or  more  properly  received.  Those  in  front  were  spitted  with 
the  bayonets  ;  those  in  flank  were  torn  in  pieces  by  the  musketry 
a?id  grape  shot :  their  left  column  made  several  attacks  on  our  right, 
but  as  the  battalions  there  never  fired  a  shot,  they  [the  Highland 
left]  thought  proper  not  to  come  too  near,  and  in  about  a  quarter 
of  an  hour  .  .  .  the  whole  first  line  gave  way,  and  we  followed 
slowly."  *  Whitefoord's  account  of  the  heavy  flank  fire  against  the 
Highland  right  corroborates  the  recollections  of  Major  Hamilton, 
who  was  "  the  right-hand  man  of  Barrel's,  next  to  De  Jean's  grena- 
diers." Hamilton,  in  answer  to  questions,  avers  that  Wolfe's  regi- 
ment, like  Maitland's  during  the  charge  of  the  French  Guard  at 
Waterloo,  moved  up,  en  potence,  on  the  flank  of  the  Highland  right, 
and  enfiladed  them.  This  movement  occurred  during  the  fierce 
hand  -  to  -  hand  struggle  between  the  Camerons  and  Stewarts,  and 
Barrel's    regiment,     "  I    have    never   doubted    that    the    battle    of 

*  The  Whitefoord  Papers,  p.  78  :  1S9S. 
VOL.  IV.  3   K 


512  CULLODEN. 

Culloden  was  terminated  by  Wolfe's  regiment  marching  from  the 
second  Hne  and  pouring  its  fire  on  the  enemy  along  the  front  of 
the  first.  ...  It  marched,  probably,  by  order  of  some  general 
officer,  who,  seeing  the  contest  was  becoming  personal,  and  unequal 
numbers,  sent  that  relief  to  the  front.  .  .  ."  *  The  men  under 
Lochiel,  Lord  George,  and  Macgillavray  "bore  their  opponents 
from  their  ranks,  intermixing  with  them  everywhere."  Thus  fought 
the  brave  clans,  and  the  no  less  brave  British;  verily  "the  contest 
was  become  personal."  Stewarts  and  Camerons,  "with  the  Lowland 
wind  and  rain  "  and  smoke  in  their  faces  (as  a  Badenoch  poet  sings), 
rushed  blindly  into  the  smoke.  The  flank  fire  stopped  the  AthoU 
men,  while  Barrel's,  Munro's,  and  Stewarts,  Camerons,  Macleans, 
and  Mackintoshes  "fought,  without  intermission,  hand  to  hand, 
bayonet  against  broadsword,"  the  advancing  Highlanders  being 
"torn  to  pieces  by  musketry  and  grape,"  says  Whitefoord.  Not 
before  had  the  Prince's  men  endured  artillery-fire:  at  Falkirk  the 
British  had  no  guns  ;  at  Prestonpans  Whitefoord  discharged  only  six 
shots.  But,  at  Culloden,  the  Highlanders  charged  through  volleys 
of  grape.  We  may  quote  the  rhyming  bellman,  Dougal  Graham  : 
many  an  historian  is  less  impartial  and  less  accurate.  He  says,  of 
Cumberland — 

"  '  Grape  them  !   Grape  them  / '  did  he  cry  ; 
When  bags  of  balls  men  fired  at  once. 
Where  they  did  spread,  hard  was  the  chance  : 
It  hewed  them  down,  aye,  score  by  score, 
As  grass  does  fall  before  the  mower." 

The  Highland  attack,  says  Hamilton,  "  was  feeble  and  distant  every- 
where else,"  except  where  the  centre  and  right  converged  against  the 
British  left.     Dougal  Graham  says,  speaking  of  the  Macdonalds — 

"The  dreadful  guns  on  them  did  blatter." t 

The  descriptive  letter  by  Lochgarry  to  young  Glengarry  appears, 
by  his  silence,  to  corroborate  Cumberland.  The  Macleans,  says 
Lochgarry,  were  stationed  near  the  Macdonald  regiments,  and  he 
highly  praises  the  desperate  courage  of  the  Maclean  charge.  Of 
200  men,  not  more  than  fifty  Macleans  survived.  Of  the  behaviour 
of  the   Macdonalds,  posted  so  near  in  the  line  to  the  Macleans, 

*  Observations  on  Mr  Home's  Account,  pp.  20,  21. 

+  D.  Graham,   '  An  Impartial  History,'  eighth  edition,  pp.  87,  88  :  Glasgow, 
1808. 


CULLODEN.  513 

Lochgarry  does  not  say  a  word.^^  It  is  conceivable  that  the  centre 
of  the  Highlanders  charged  before  they  got  the  order,  and  that  the 
left,  with  more  ground  to  cover,  saw  their  mishap,  and  took  warning 
by  it.  Ker  tells  us  that  "  he  rode  along  the  line  [after  giving  the 
command  to  charge  on  the  left]  to  the  right,  where  Lord 
George  was,  who  attacked  at  the  head  of  the  AthoU  men  with 
all  the  bravery  imaginable,  as  did  indeed  the  whole  line."^^  gyj 
Cumberland  and  Yorke  and  Lord  George  make  it  clear  that  the 
Highland  left  did  not  attack  in  their  wonted  way,  fearing  a  flank 
attack,  and  discouraged  by  the  fall  of  Keppoch,  his  brother  Donald, 
and  Scothouse. 

Scott  (1830)  is  responsible  for  the  story  that  "  the  gallant  Keppoch 
in  vain  charged  alone  with  a  few  of  his  near  relations,  while  his  clan 
.  .  .  remained  stationary."  Exclaiming,  "Have  the  children  of  my 
tribe  forsaken  me ! "  he  fell  under  several  shots,  .  .  .  leaving  him 
only  time  to  advise  his  favourite  nephew  to  shift  for  himself."  Eye- 
witnesses gave  quite  a  different  account :  ^^  Keppoch  was  not  "  for- 
saken."    On  this  point  see  Appendix,  "  The  Death  of  Keppoch." 

Meanwhile,  as  has  been  said,  the  Stewarts  of  Appin,  Mackin- 
toshes, Camerons,  Erasers,  and  Macleans  fought  as  they  ever 
fought.  Plied  with  guns  in  front  and  in  flank,  and  by  a  front 
and  flanking  fire  of  musketry,  blinded  by  smoke  and  snow,  they 
broke  Barrel's  regiment,  they  swept  over  the  foremost  guns,  and 
then,  enfiladed  by  Wolfe's,  they  died  on  the  bayonets  of  the  second 
line,  which  "  behaved  with  great  steadiness."  Lord  George's  men, 
being  nearest  to  the  wall  held  by  the  Campbells,  suffered  much, 
and  never  came  to  the  shock,  A  Mr  Robert  Nairn  left  them,  when 
they  halted,  and  joined  Lochiel's  Camerons  in  the  attack  on  Barrel's, 
He  told  Home,  four  years  later,  that  "  he  saw  only  two  of  Barrel's 
men  standing."  One  of  these  poked  his  bayonet  into  Mr  Nairn's 
eye,  and  he  lay  all  night  on  the  field. ^"^  "The  rebels  who  came 
round  the  left  of  Barrel's  in  the  pell-mell  broke  through  the  line," 
says  Yorke. 

In  this  onfall,  says  tradition,  Macgillavray  died  near  the  Well  of 
the  Dead,  a  gun-shot  beyond  the  guns.  Here,  says  Cumberland, 
"they  threw  stones  for  at  least  a  minute  or  two  before  their  total 
rout  began."  They  had  probably  thrown  down  their  muskets,  and 
the  broadsword  could  not  break  the  bayonets  of  the  second  line. 
Like  Lord  George,  Maxwell  says  that  the  second  Highland  line 
came  up  "  in  good  order  "  to  sustain  the  first,  but  "  the  day  was 


SH  CONDUCT   OF   THE   PRINCE. 

irrecoverably  lost, — nothing  could  stop  the  Highlanders  after  they 
began  to  run."^^  The  second  line  was  exposed  to  the  cavalry 
which  had  outflanked  the  right  wing  by  way  of  the  broken  walls, 
but,  according  to  Maxwell,  "  it  saved  abundance  of  men's  lives  "  by 
its  resistance.  Ogilvy's,  too,  retired  in  order,  facing  the  dragoons. 
But  the  rout  was  complete,  the  French,  who  stood  longest,  retreat- 
ing to  Inverness,  where  they  surrendered,  and  most  of  the  army 
breaking  away  across  the  Water  of  Nairn  to  the  hills  of  the  west. 
"  Major  Bland,"  says  Cumberland,  "  made  great  slaughter,  and  gave 
quarter  to  none  "  but  the  French  "  in  the  pursuit."  ^^ 

To  the  question  of  "  No  Quarter  "  we  return  ;  but  while  the  battle 
raged,  where  was  the  Prince  ?  During  the  first  artillery-fire  he  was 
under  it :  he  was  at  his  post  when  he  gave  his  order  to  Ker.  It  is 
stated  on  all  hands  that  a  groom  was  shot  dead  behind  him,  and 
that  the  fire,  at  this  time,  was  mainly  directed  at  the  small  body  of 
horse.  We  may  quote  a  spectator  who  was  with  the  Prince,  Sir 
Robert  Strange,  the  famous  engraver,  who  designed  the  plate  for 
the  paper-money  of  the  army  in  its  last  days.  He  describes  the 
battle  thus  :  ^^ — 

"The  enemy  formed  at  a  considerable  distance,  and  marched  on 
in  order  of  battle,  outlining  us  both  on  the  right  and  on  the  left. 
About  one  o'clock  the  cannonading  began,  and  the  Duke's  artillery, 
being  well  served,  could  not  fail  of  doing  execution.  One  of  the 
Prince's  grooms,  who  led  a  sumpter-horse,  was  killed  upon  the 
spot ;  some  of  the  guards  were  wounded,  as  were  several  of  the 
horse.  One  Austin,  a  very  worthy,  pleasant  fellow,  stood  on  my 
left ;  he  rode  a  fine  mare,  which  he  was  accustomed  to  call  his 
lady.  He  perceived  her  give  a  sudden  shrink,  and,  on  looking 
around  him,  called  out,  *  Alas  !  I  have  lost  my  lady  ! '  One  of  her 
hind  legs  was  shot,  and  hanging  by  the  skin.  He  that  instant 
dismounted,  and,  endeavouring  to  push  her  out  of  the  ranks,  she 
came  to  the  ground.  He  took  his  gun  and  pistols  out  of  the 
holsters,  stepped  forward,  joined  the  foot,  but  was  never  more 
heard  of.  The  Prince,  observing  this  disagreeable  position,  and 
without  answering  any  end  whatever,  ordered  us  down  to  a  covered 
way,  which  was  a  little  towards  our  right,  and  where  we  were  less 
annoyed  with  the  Duke's  cannon  :  he  himself,  with  his  aides-de- 
camp, rode  along  the  line  towards  the  right,  animating  the  soldiers. 
The  guards  had  scarce  been  a  minute  or  two  in  this  position  when 
the  small  arms  began  from  the  Duke's  army,  and  kept  up  a  constant 


strange's  account.  515 

fire  :  that  instant,  as  it  were,  one  of  the  aides-de-camp  returned,  and 
desired  us  to  join  the  Prince.  We  met  him  in  endeavouring  to  rally 
the  soldiers,  who,  annoyed  with  the  enemy's  fire,  were  beginning  to 
quit  the  field.  The  right  of  our  army,  commanded  by  Lord  George 
Murray,  had  made  a  furious  attack,  cut  their  way  through  Barrel's 
and  Monro's  regiments,  and  had  taken  possession  of  two  pieces  of 
cannon  ;  but  a  reinforcement  of  Wolfe's  regiment,  &c.,  coming  up 
from  the  Duke's  second  line,  our  right  wing  was  obliged  to  give 
way,  being  at  the  same  time  flanked  with  some  pieces  of  artillery, 
which  did  great  execution.  Towards  the  left  the  attack  had  been 
less  vigorous  than  on  the  right,  and  of  course  had  made  but  little 
impression  on  the  Duke's  army ;  nor  was  it  indeed  general,  for  the 
centre,  which  had  been  much  galled  by  the  enemy's  artillery,  almost 
instantly  quitted  the  field. 

"  The  scene  of  confusion  was  now  great ;  nor  can  the  imagination 
figure  it.  The  men  in  general  were  betaking  themselves  precipi- 
tately to  flight ;  nor  was  there  any  possibility  of  their  being  rallied. 
Horror  and  dismay  were  painted  in  every  countenance.  It  now 
became  time  to  provide  for  the  Prince's  safety :  his  person  had  been 
abundantly  exposed.  He  was  got  off"  the  field,  and  very  narrowly 
escaped  falling  in  with  a  body  of  horse  which,  having  been  detached 
from  the  Duke's  left,  were  advancing  with  an  incredible  rapidity, 
picking  up  the  stragglers,  and,  as  they  gave  no  quarter,  were  level- 
ling them  with  the  ground.  The  greater  numbers  of  the  army  were 
already  out  of  danger,  the  flight  having  been  so  precipitate.  We 
got  upon  a  rising  ground,  where  we  turned  round  and  made  a 
general  halt.  The  scene  was,  indeed,  tremendous.  Never  was  so 
total  a  rout  —  a  more  thorough  discomfiture  of  an  army.  The 
adjacent  country  was  in  a  manner  covered  with  its  ruins.  The 
whole  was  over  in  about  twenty-five  minutes.  The  Duke's  artillery 
kept  still  playing,  though  not  a  soul  upon  the  field.  His  army  was 
kept  together,  all  but  the  horse.  The  great  pursuit  was  upon  the 
road  towards  Inverness.  Of  towards  six  thousand  men,  which  the 
Prince's  army  at  this  period  consisted  of,  about  one  thousand  were 
asleep  in  Culloden  parks,  who  knew  nothing  of  the  action  till  awaked 
by  the  noise  of  the  cannon.  These  in  general  endeavoured  to  save 
themselves  by  taking  the  road  towards  Inverness  ;  and  most  of  them 
fell  a  sacrifice  to  the  victors,  for  this  road  was  in  general  strewed 
with  dead  bodies.  The  Prince  at  this  moment  had  his  cheeks 
bedewed  with  tears  ;  what  must  not  his  feeling  heart  have  suffered  ! " 


5l6  CONDUCT  OF  THE  PRINCE. 

It  is  certain  that  Charles  did  thus  withdraw,  with  his  guards,  to 
shelter,  for  Captain  Daniel,  who  was  with  him  at  the  moment, 
mentions  the  fact.  The  captain  was  sent  back,  with  a  captured 
English  flag  which  he  carried,  to  the  Prince's  position,  lest  the 
departure  of  the  flag  might  suggest  retreat.  On  arriving  at  this 
position  he  soon  found  that  all  hope  was  lost.  Strange  vouches  for 
the  Prince's  attempt  to  rally  fugitives.  Charles  himself,  in  an 
autograph  document,  says  that  he  was  "  led  off  the  field  by  those 
about  him,"  probably  Sullivan,  Sheridan,  and  others,  and  that  he 
"  changed  his  horse,  his  own  having  been  wounded  by  a  musket- 
ball  in  the  shoulder."  ^^  Stewart,  a  servant  of  Charles,  told  Bishop 
Forbes  that  no  such  matter  occurred.  Home  quotes  a  signed 
document  by  a  cornet  of  Horse  Guards,  who  avers  that  Charles 
resisted  the  entreaties  of  Sheridan  and  others,  but  that  Sullivan 
"laid  hold  of  the  bridle  of  his  horse  and  turned  it  about.  To 
witness  this  I  summon  mine  own  eyes."  ^^  Yorke  says  that  Charles 
made  no  effort  to  rally  his  men,  but  admits  that  he  did  not  leave 
the  field  till  "after  being  witness  to  the  flight  of  the  Lowlanders 
and  French  who  composed  his  second  line." 

So  far  the  Prince  seems  to  have  behaved  like  Montrose  at  Philip- 
haugh,  like  Claverhouse  at  Drumclog,  like  Cumberland  on  a 
number  of  occasions.  A  defeated  general  cannot  restore  victory 
by  his  own  sword.  Highland  victories  had  not  been  gained  by 
tenacity  in  resistance,  but  by  energy  in  attack.  When  leaders  like 
Lochiel  and  Keppoch  were  down,  when  the  regimental  officers 
were  dead  or  wounded,  when  the  rain  of  bullets  was  falling  on 
the  rear,  when  cavalry  was  menacing  the  flanks,  neither  Charles 
nor  any  man  could  make  the  shattered  clans  turn  again.  Thus  it 
is  not  for  yielding  to  superior  force  that  the  Prince  is  to  be  blamed, 
but  for  separating  himself  from  the  main  body  of  his  forces  and 
from  his  general.  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell  was  a  member  of  the 
Prince's  Life  Guards,  who  accompanied  him,  says  Maxwell,  to 
secure  his  retreat,  "which  was  made  without  any  danger,  for  the 
enemy  advanced  very  leisurely  over  the  ground."  The  little 
squadron  rode  "  pointing  towards  Fort  Augustus,"  and,  after  cross- 
ing the  Nairn  at  the  ford  of  Failie,  Charles  went  aside  with 
Sheridan,  Sullivan,  Hay,  and  a  few  others.  In  their  consultation 
it  seems  probable  that  the  Irishmen  must  have  plied  the  Prince 
with  the  old  doubts  of  Lord  George,  though  a  few  minutes  before 
he  had  expressed  to  Ker  his  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  his  general. 


NO   FIXED    RENDEZVOUS.  517 

They  may  have  persuaded  the  Prince  that  he,  with  the  great  reward 
on  his  head,  would,  by  one  traitor  or  another,  be  made  the  scape- 
goat of  the  enterprise,  and  handed  over  to  the  English.  In  any 
case  Charles  sent  the  younger  Sheridan  back  to  his  guards,  who 
led  them  half  a  mile  on  the  road  to  Ruthven  (whither  Lord  George 
and  such  Lowlanders  and  others  as  held  together  were  marching), 
and  "  let  them  know  it  was  the  Prince's  pleasure  they  should  shift 
for  themselves."  Maxwell  remarks  that  "  there  was  hardly  anything 
else  to  be  done,"  as,  owing  to  a  dearth  in  the  Highlands,  "  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  a  considerable  body  of  men  to  subsist 
together,"  For  this  reason  the  Prince  meant  to  make  for  France, 
where  he  thought  that  his  personal  presence  would  procure  a 
favourable  decision.'^*^ 

Elcho,  according  to  his  own  account,  lingered  when  the  guard 
had  left,  was  told  by  Charles  that  he  meant  to  return  to  France, 
gave  the  Prince  his  mind  in  the  plainest  terms,  and  "left  him 
fully  determined  never  to  have  anything  more  to  do  with  him." 
By  nine  o'clock  that  night  Charles  was  at  Lovat's  house  of  Gortaleg. 
At  that  hour  his  aide-de-camp,  Alexander  Macleod,  wrote  to  Cluny 
that  the  Prince  would  next  day  review  the  Frasers,  Camerons, 
Stewarts,  Clanranald,  and  Keppoch's  men  at  Fort  Augustus. 
Thither  Lord  George  was  to  lead  his  own  force.  Lord  George 
replied  to  Cluny  that  this  was  "a  state  of  politics  I  do  not  com- 
prehend," and  that  people  from  Fort  Augustus  reported  that  Charles 
had  gone  thence  into  Clanranald's  country.'^^  No  rendezvous  had 
been  fixed  on  in  case  of  defeat.  This  is  clear,  for  we  have  the 
General  Orders  written  at  Culloden  in  Lord  George's  own  hand  for 
April  14,  15.  All  are  to  remain  with  their  corps,  night  and  day, 
"  untile  the  Batle  and  persute  be  finally  over,"  Not  a  word  is  said 
as  to  what  is  to  be  done  in  case  of  disaster.  In  two  copies  which 
the  Duke  of  AthoU  possesses,  the  passage  "  atid  to  give  710  quarter 
to  the  Elector's  troops  on  no  account  whatsoever  "  does  not  occur.  It 
was  published  after  the  action  in  the  newspapers ;  it  was  unknown 
to  Balmerino  and  Kilmarnock  ;  but  it  was  made  the  occasion,  or 
excuse,  for  the  cruelties  of  Cumberland,  who,  we  know,  had  long 
before  issued  his  "  No  Quarter "  order,  seen  and  copied  by  Mac- 
pherson  of  Strathmashie.^"- 

There  was  thus  no  fixed  rendezvous  in  case  of  defeat.  But  it 
is  plain  that  Lord  George  Murray  took  Macleod's  letter  of  the 
evening  of  Culloden  to  be  a  subterfuge.     He  left  Charles  no  place 


5l8  LOYALTY  TO  THE  PRINCE. 

for  returning.  On  the  day  after  Culloden,  at  Ruthven  in  Badenoch, 
he  wrote  a  scolding  letter  to  Charles.  "  It  was  highly  wrong  to 
set  up  the  Royal  standard  without  having  positive  assurance  from 
Louis  XV.  that  he  would  assist  you  with  all  his  force."  In  that 
case  it  was  "  highly  wrong "  of  Lord  George  to  burn  the  AthoU 
tenants  out  of  house  and  home  to  fight  for  an  enterprise  that  was 
"highly  wrong."  Lord  George  then  denounced  Sullivan,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  the  matter  of  the  walls  at  Culloden,  and  generally. 
He  attacked  Hay's  mismanagement  of  supplies,  and  sent  in  his 
resignation.  He  said  nothing  about  the  numbers,  condition,  or 
prospects  of  his  force.'^  If  Charles  received  this  letter,  he  certainly 
could  not  return  to  Lord  George.  While  Lord  George's  partisans 
say  that  it  was  Charles  who  insisted  on  fighting  at  Culloden,  Charles, 
according  to  his  companion  in  his  wanderings,  Neil  MacEachain, 
father  of  Marshal  Macdonald,  declared  that  he  used  all  his  rhetoric 
and  eloquence  against  fighting,  "  yet  my  Lord  George  out-reasoned 

him  till  at  last  he  yielded,   for  fear  to   raise  a  dissension  in  the 

army."  74 

Captain  Daniel,  who  was  in  the  Guards  at  Culloden,  gives  the 
same  account  in  his  MS. 

The  clear  result  of  these  confusions  was  Charles's  most  un- 
warrantable flight  in  a  boat  from  Borradale  on  April  26.  From 
that  moment  began  those  perils  and  wanderings  in  which  he  won 
the  affection  of  the  Highlanders.  Had  he  tarried  on  the  mainland 
with  Lochiel,  Sheridan,  Hay,  Murray  of  Broughton,  and  others,  he 
might  have  escaped  with  the  French  ships  which  landed  some 
40,000  louis  at  Borradale  on  May  3.  In  these  ships  did  Elcho, 
Lord  George  Drummond,  Sheridan,  Hay,  Captain  Daniel,  and 
others  take  their  passage.  There  was  an  epidemic  on  board,  and 
the  brave  and  good  Duke  of  Perth  died  at  sea.'^* 

Thanks  to  the  devotion  of  Highlanders  in  every  rank,  and  of 
many  clans,  Charles,  after  infinite  perils,  sailed  for  France  on 
September  20,  1746.  His  adventures  only  increased  the  loyalty 
of  Lochiel,  Lochgarry,  Cluny,  and  many  others  who  had  ruined 
themselves  for  him.  No  torture,  inflicted  by  beating  with  belts, 
was  more  efl"ectual  than  was  the  reward  of  ^30,000  in  extracting 
information  from  the  poorest  people  who  knew  his  movements."** 
While  Flora  Macdonald  won  an  immortal  fame  by  her  self-sacrificing 
goodness,  it  may  be  said  that  of  all  whom  the  Prince  trusted  not 
one  failed  him  in  these  straits.     It  is  not,  fortunately,  our  task  to 


CRUELTIES   OF   CUMBERLAND.  519 

trace  the  later  unhappy  fortunes  of  "a  man  undone,"  and  the 
sorrows  which  his  conduct  heaped  on  the  patient  head  of  the 
good  King  Janies.^' 

In  all  wars  the  vanquished  have  tales  to  tell  of  the  "atrocities" 
committed  by  the  victors.  The  patient  researches  of  Bishop  Forbes, 
who  was  scrupulous  about  obtaining  evidence  at  first  hand,  do  prove 
beyond  doubt  the  exercise  of  great  cruelties, — slaughter  of  the 
wounded  and  of  prisoners,  and  the  starving  of  prisoners  in  noisome 
dungeons  like  "  the  bridge  hole  "  at  Inverness.  On  the  day  after 
the  battle,  Cumberland  issued  an  order  to  a  captain  and  fifty  men 
to  search  the  cottages  for  the  wounded.  "  The  officer  and  men  will 
take  notice  that  the  publick  orders  of  the  rebels  yesterday  were  to 
give  us  no  quarter."  ^^  We  have  seen  that  there  is  no  evidence  for 
the  "  publick  orders  "  of  the  rebels.  If  there  had  been,  they  would 
not  excuse  the  shooting  and  burning  of  wounded  men,  who  had 
given  no  orders,  in  cold  blood.  The  Duke  of  Atholl  possesses  an 
order  of  Cumberland  of  February  20,  1746,  bidding  Campbell  of 
Knockduie  give  no  quarter  to  the  enemy.^^  Cumberland  thus 
undeniably  earned  the  name  of  the  Butcher,  and  we  see  the  value 
of  his  pretext  for  his  "  No  Quarter  "  orders.  There  was  a  reign  of 
fantastic  and  fiendish  brutality :  one  provost  of  the  town  was  vio- 
lently kicked  for  a  mild  remonstrance  about  the  destruction  of  the 
Episcopalian  meeting-house ;  another  was  condemned  to  clean  out 
dirty  stables.  Men  and  women  were  whipped  and  tortured  on  slight 
suspicion,  or  to  extract  information.  Cumberland  frankly  professed 
his  contempt  and  hatred  of  the  people  among  whom  he  found  him- 
self, but  he  savagely  punished  robberies  committed  by  private 
soldiers  for  their  own  profit.  "  Mild  measures  will  not  do,"  he 
wrote  to  Newcastle,  and,  when  leaving  the  North  in  July,  said,  "All 
the  good  we  have  done  is  but  a  little  blood-letting,  which  has  only 
weakened  the  madness  but  not  at  all  cured  it,  and  I  tremble  to  fear 
that  this  vile  spot  may  still  be  the  ruin  of  this  island,  and  of  our 
family."  «« 

The  truth  is  that  the  spirit  of  the  clans  was  not  quenched  by 
one  defeat,  or  by  fire  and  hunger.  The  hills  were  full  of  knots  of 
men  holding  together  in  arms,  though  an  attempt  by  the  wounded 
Lochiel  to  collect  the  fighting  clans  in  May  was  frustrated,  the 
friends  of  Lochgarry  and  Barisdale  respectively  misdoubting  the 
loyalty  of  these  chieftains.  There  seems  no  reason  to  distrust 
Lochgarry,  who  held  out  in  his  fastnesses,  and  drew  the  last  blood 


520  UNBROKEN    SPIRIT   OF   THE   CLANS. 

of  the  campaign  from  armed  parties  sent  to  drive  his  cattle  and 
destroy  his  lands. 

To  ruin  and  starve  the  Jacobite  clans  was  the  deliberate  policy, 
executed  with  fire  and  sword  by  some  2500  Argyll  Highlanders, 
and  men  of  Sir  Alexander  Macdonald  and  of  Macleod.  Regulars 
were  sent  on  the  same  duty,  and  it  is  said  in  a  contemporary 
tract  that  in  some  regions  the  very  shell-fish  on  the  shores  were 
ploughed  up.  Cumberland  wished  to  extirpate  the  opponents  at 
whose  possible  revenge  he  trembled,  but  the  measures  taken  pro- 
duced other  results  than  he  desired.  In  October  and  November 
two  spies  of  Albemarle's,  Highlanders,  made  a  journey  through  the 
country  of  the  Jacobite  clans  and  sent  in  a  report.  They  found 
the  Macleans  well  armed,  anxious  to  join  a  French  invasion  in 
spring,  and  both  in  Mull  and  Morven  was  great  plenty  of  French 
gold  and  Spanish  money.  Some  of  this  may  have  come  from  one 
cask  stolen  from  those  which  were  landed  at  Borradale.  Cluny 
had  the  nominal  custody  of  the  other  casks,  and  used  part  of  the 
money  to  keep  up  the  spirits  of  the  clans,  some  of  whose  tacksmen 
later  quarrelled,  and  in  certain  cases  were  demoralised  over  the 
division  of  the  spoils.^'^  On  the  coast  the  crews  of  ships  of  war  and 
the  Campbells  burned  fifteen  "  towns  " — that  is,  little  settlements 
round  such  houses  as  Ardtornish,  Drimmin,  and  Killounden.  In 
Moidart  and  Strontian  many  men  had  surrendered,  and  their  cattle 
were  spared  ;  meal  was  scarce,  but  there  was  plenty  of  French 
brandy,  which  kept  up  a  desire  to  rise  again.  In  Appin  the 
houses  of  Ardsheil  and  Ballachulish  had  been  burned  by  the  much- 
detested  Captain  Carolina  Scott,  but  there  were  cattle  and  meal 
in  abundance.  Six  "  towns "  were  burned.  The  Glencoe  people 
surrendered,  and  saved  their  cattle  and  houses.  All  Keppoch's 
lands  were  burned,  and  all  of  Lochiel's  except  the  house  of  his 
staid  brother,  Fassifern.  Lochiel's  men  were  still  ready  to  fight, 
as  were  Glengarry's.  Lochgarry  later  reported  to  Charles  that  not 
a  thousand  men  were  lost  in  the  Rising.  The  Jacobite  leaders 
were  at  home,  and  kept  their  men  in  pay.  In  Skye  the  officers 
of  the  Government's  Independent  Companies,  having  been  neglected, 
were  ready  to  join  in  a  rising.  All  the  Grants  of  Glenmoriston, 
having  had  their  cattle  driven  and  their  houses  burned,  were  eager 
to  fight,  as  were  the  Macphersons,  for  the  same  reasons.  The 
AthoU  men  were  peaceful,  and  abounded  in  complaints  against 
Lord  George  Murray  for  "forcing  them  out."^^ 


SUPPRESSIVE    LEGISLATION.  521 

Thus  Cumberland's  policy  had  exasperated,  not  subdued,  the 
fighting  clans,  who,  in  the  event  of  the  French  invasion,  for  which 
they  hoped,  would  have  been  as  dangerous  as  ever,  and  less  well- 
conducted.  The  executions  in  England,  from  Carlisle  to  London, 
did  not  appal  them.  It  is  superfluous  to  tell  how  Kilmarnock, 
Balmerino,  Townley,  Lovat,  and  many  others  died  :  on  Lovat  the 
guilt  was  fixed  by  Murray  of  Broughton,  who  determined  to  buy  his 
life  with  eternal  shame  as  soon  as  he  was  captured,  and  who,  while 
he  lived,  was  shunned  as  a  leper,  his  own  wife  flying  from  him. 
It  needed  some  ten  years,  the  degeneration  of  the  Prince,  the 
treachery  of  some  of  his  intimates,^^  and  the  long  inaction  of  France, 
to  pacify  the  clans.  Alone  and  unaided  they  could  not  "do  it 
again,"  and  France  was  never  able  or  willing  to  aid  them.  The 
death  of  the  brave  and  good  Lochiel,  a  man  praised  by  Cumber- 
land's successor,  Albemarle,  and  by  the  common  verdict  of  both 
parties,  was  also  a  sore  discouragement.  He  prayed  to  be  allowed 
to  return  from  France  "and  perish  with  the  people  I  have  undone," 
but  he  was  not  heard,  and  death  released  him  from  his  sorrows. 
In  Lochiel  we  find  the  ideal  of  all  the  virtues  of  his  race,  without 
one  known  blemish  ;  while  Forbes  of  CuUoden,  the  glory  of  the 
opposite  faction,  courageous,  clement,  honourable,  unsparing  of  toil 
and  of  money,  died  unrewarded,  nay,  unrepaid,  accused  by  Cumber- 
land of  "  the  Highland  madness." 

The  Rising  led  to  three  acts  of  legislation  of  minor  importance. 
A  disarming  Act  prevented  those  broils  in  which,  as  Homer  says, 
"  iron  of  himself  draweth  a  man  to  him,"  but  would  have  been 
ineffective  in  case  of  a  French  invasion.  Men  did  not,  as  before, 
wear  arms  in  civil  life,  but  they  knew  where  to  find  what  they 
wanted  if  war  arose.  The  Highland  dress  was  proscribed  under 
heavy  penalties, — a  cruelly  severe  law  against  people  who  had  no 
other,  though  with  time  they  came  to  find  Lowland  costume 
sufficiently  convenient.  But  the  great  and  effective  measure — 
expected  after  17 15,  but  delayed — was  the  abolition  of  hereditary 
claims  of  feudal  superiors  to  military  service,  and  the  substitution 
of  "  sheriff  deputies  "  advocates  for  the  old  hereditable  jurisdictions. 
As  against  the  arguments  of  the  Scottish  Judges,  Lord  Hardwicke, 
in  1747,  supported  this  change  in  a  speech  not  easily  to  be 
answered.  The  alteration  would  have  been  equally  desirable,  he 
said,  if  there  had  been  no  rebellion.^  Compensation  was  paid  to 
the  holders  of  hereditable  jurisdictions.     Argyll  received  ;^2 1,000  ; 


522  THE   END. 

the  Duchess  of  Gordon  ^25.  Buccleuch  had  but  ;!^34oo  to 
Morton's  ;^7240  and  Eglintoun's  ;^78oo.  J,  &  I.  Smith,  clerks 
of  the  Registrar  of  Aberbrothrock,  end  "  an  auld  sang  "  to  the  tune 
of  ^13,  6s.  8d. !  The  whole  sum  was  ;^i52,237,  15s.  4d.,  while 
claims  had  been  put  in  for  ;^583,o9o,  i6s.  8d.  J.  &  I.  Smith  had 
asked  for  ;^3oo. 

The  scheme  of  forfeiture  of  estates  was  not  on  the  system  of 
selling  them,  as  after  1 7 1 5,  but  of  giving  them  to  the  Crown,  whose 
agents  in  some  cases  evicted  Jacobite  tenants  and  were  encouraged 
to  select  Protestants.  In  course  of  time  the  descendants  of  the  old 
owners  were  restored,  and  it  is  not  to  the  Rising  that  such  chiefs  as 
became  landless  men  owed  their  impoverishment.  Within  thirty 
years  from  1745  the  economic  conditions  of  Highland  estates  altered, 
values  were  many  times  multiplied,  and  the  old  tribal  relations  of 
the  patriarch  and  his  children  having  ceased  to  exist,  some  clans 
migrated,  happily  for  themselves,  to  America ;  others  waited  to  be 
evicted  and  see  their  places  filled  by  sheep,  grouse,  and  deer. 

It  must  be  for  another  hand  to  tell  the  story  of  these  processes, 
and  of  the  very  gradual  harmonising  of  Scotland  with  England. 
We  have  pursued  the  history  of  the  country  to  the  point  where, 
contrary  to  the  will  of  the  vast  pacific  majority,  the  last  attempt  is 
made  "  to  break  the  Union,"  and  restore  Scotland  to  her  old  estate 
as  an  independent  kingdom.  For  three  centuries  discerning  men 
had  seen  that  nature  designed  the  inhabitants  of  the  isle  of  Britain 
to  be  citizens  of  a  single  state, — a  consummation  long  delayed,  and 
for  the  last  time  opposed  in  arms  by  the  clans  under  Prince  Charles. 


NOTES   TO    CHAPTER   XIX. 

'  Earls  of  Cromarlie,  ii.  388. 

*  Jacol)ite  Correspondence  of  the  Atholl  Family,  pp.  136-142. 
^  Maxwell,  pp.  99,  100. 

*  Maxwell,  p.  icxa. 

'  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  84. 

*  Home,  p.  171. 
'  Home,  p.  171. 

*  Maxwell,  p.  102. 

'  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  85,  and  Maxwell. 


NOTES.  523 

10  Ewald. 

"  Home,  p.  174. 

^'-  Home,  p.  176,  note. 

"  Lockhart  Papers,  ii.  503. 

"  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  165. 

"  Blaikie,  p.  119. 

"  Maxwell,  vol.  vii. 

''  Maxwell,  vol.  iii. 

"  Home,  p.  352,  fir. 

^^  Maxwell,  p.  115. 

^  Mahon,  iii.  293. 

^  Blaikie,  pp.  73-75  ;  MSS.  of  the  Duke  of  AtholL 

^  Home,  p.  355  ;  Blaikie,  pp.  76,  77. 

•^  Blaikie,  p.  78. 

'■^  Maxwell,  p.  114. 

"^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  lOO. 

-*  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  100. 

^  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  188. 

^  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  186. 

^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  lOO. 

^  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  134-137. 

»i  Blaikie,  p.  88. 

*■-  Jacobite  Memoirs,  pp.  104-106. 

'^  Maxwell,  p.  118. 

^  Maxwell,  pp.  119,  120. 

*'  Lord  George  in  'The  Lyon  in  Mourning,'  i.  260. 

^  Maxwell,  p.  120. 

"  Maxwell,  pp.  125-127. 

'8  Macpherson  of  Strathmashie,  'The  Lyon  in  Mourning,'  ii.  91,  92. 

^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  pp.  106-111. 

**>  Maxwell,  p.  130. 

*^  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  215. 

^  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  218. 

*^  Maxwell,  p.  134. 

^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  121. 

**  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.  256,  360. 

^^  Maxwell,  p.  144;  Atholl,  Jacobite  Correspondence,  p.  122. 

«  Stuart  MSS.,  Windsor  Castle. 

^  Home,  pp.  366-372. 

*  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.  364. 

'^  Maxwell,  p.  149. 

'^  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  123. 

'^  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  Tenth  Report,  p.  442. 

^  In  'The  Inverness  Courier,'  1904,  Mr  Murray  Rose  argued  from  old  plans, 
and  after  a  visit  to  the  moor,  that  the  battle  took  place  on  a  site  not  accepted 
by  Mr  Alexander  Fraser,  President  of  the  Inverness  Scientific  Society  and  Field 
Club.  He  said  that  the  famous  enclosure  wall  on  the  Highland  right  was  placed 
by  Mr  Murray  much  nearer  the  river  Nairn  than  anybody  else  conceived  was 
possible.  But  Lord  George  says  that  the  Nairn  was  only  300  yards  away. 
Whitefoord's  hasty  sketch,  which  we  give,  corroborates  Lord  George  ;  while  a 
letter  by  Captain  Duncan  Campbell  to  Lord  Glenorchy  (April  26)  asserts  that  the 


524  NOTES. 

high  wall  reached  the  water  of  Nairn,  which  is  corroborated  by  Ker  of  Graden, 
who  reconnoitred  the  position  before  the  battle.  It  is  impossible  for  a  writer  who 
has  only  once  visited  the  scene,  like  myself,  to  argue  t^ainst  local  historians, 
except  in  so  far  as  Lord  George  and  Captain  Campbell  appear  to  favour  Mr 
Murray  Rose's  view.  But  Whitefoord's  map  is  certainly,  in  some  points,  inac- 
curate, while  Captain  Campbell  makes  the  extraordinary  mistake  of  placing  the 
field  "about  a  mile  south"  of  Inverness.  In  Mr  Murray  Rose's  own  map  the 
extreme  right  of  the  Highlanders  is  as  far  from  the  water  of  Nairn  as  the  full 
length  of  the  lines  of  both  parties,  which  seems  impossible :  surely  the  battle 
lines  were  over  300  yards  in  length.  But  Mr  Murray  Rose  remarks  that  he  has 
not  preserved  a  scale  of  distances.  In  these  circumstances,  so  vague  and  so 
discordant,  minute  accuracy  cannot  be  attained.  In  the  chart  illustrative  of 
Sir  Alexander  Tulloch's  'Culloden'  (Inverness,  1902),  the  Nairn  water  is  not 
indicated,  while  authorities  are  not  cited  for  the  various  statements  made. 

Meanwhile  the  author  is  indebted  to  Mr  Barron  of  Inverness  for  a  lucid  state- 
ment. Colonel  Yorke's  map  is  wrong  in  not  extending  the  long  wall  on  the 
same  line  as  the  Highland  left  down  to  the  river  Nairn.  The  houses  marked 
within  Yorke's  enclosures  (i)  are  the  farmhouse  of  Culchunaig  ;  (2)  the  more 
distant  house  is  that  of  the  farm  of  Baluraid.  The  bogs  on  the  Highland 
right  are  still  incompletely  drained  :  they  are  those  of  the  Feabuie,  or  Stable 
hollow.  Traces  of  the  old  road  to  Inverness  (not  the  present  road),  marked  on 
Yorke's  chart,  are  extant.  The  distance  from  the  Well  of  the  Dead  (tradition- 
ally the  scene  of  the  fiercest  fighting)  to  the  river  is  1230  yards  :  the  graves  are 
still  farther  from  the  river  Nairn.  Culchunaig  was  about  950  yards  from  the 
river,  and  nearer  the  river  than  any  part  of  the  Prince's  army.  According  to 
tradition,  the  Prince  retired  to  Baluraid  before  he  left  the  field ;  and  that  he  did 
retire  to  a  sheltered  spot  is  vouched  for  by  Captain  Daniel,  as  he  was  the  mark 
of  Cumberland's  artillery. 

"  Jacobite  Memoirs,  p.  124. 

**  Maxwell,  p.  148.     Finlayson's  map.     Blaikie,  p.  97. 

'®  The  question  of  Lord  George's  generalship  is  complicated  by  the  problem  of 
these  walls.  In  an  angry  letter  written  to  Charles  from  Ruthven  on  April  17,  the 
day  after  the  battle,  Lord  George  says  that  Sullivan  did  not  visit  the  ground  where 
the  army  was  drawn  up,  "  and  it  was  a  fatal  error  yesterday  to  allow  the  enemy 
these  walls  upon  their  left,  which  made  it  impossible  for  us  to  break  them  ;  and 
they  with  their  front  fire,  and  flanking  us  when  we  went  upon  the  attack,  destroyed 
us  without  any  possibility  of  our  breaking  them.  ..."     (Blaikie,  p.  79.) 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Rev.  John  Cameron,  Presbyterian  chaplain  at  Fort 
William,  was  with  Lochiel  at  the  battle.  He  "heard  Lord  George  formerly  say 
that  '  the  park  '  [i.e.,  the  enclosure  walls  of  the  park]  would  be  of  great  service 
to  prevent  our  being  flanked."  But,  says  Mr  Cameron,  when  Lord  George  heard 
that  the  AthoU  and  Cameron  officers  "were  afraid  to  be  flanked,  he  sent  Colonel 
Sullivan,  John  Roy  Stewart,  and  Ker  of  Graden  to  view  it  [the  wall]  down  to 
the  water  of  Nairn.  At  their  return,  they  said  it  was  impossible  for  any  horse  to 
come  by  that  way."  The  men  and  Perth,  who  came  to  examine  the  place,  pro- 
posed to  line  the  park  wall.  But  Lord  George,  thinking  it  otherwise,  ordered 
Lord  Ogilvy's  regiment  to  cover  the  flank,  and  told  there  was  no  danger.  ..." 
('  Lyon  in  Mourning,'  i.  86,  87.) 

Now  Ker  of  Graden  corroborates  :  "After  having  reconnoitred  the  inclosurc, 
which  ran  down  to  the  water  of  Nairn  on  the  ri,L;ht,  so  tliat  no  body  of  men  could 
pass  without  throwing  down  the  wall  ;  ...   to  guard  further  against  any  attempts 


NOTES.  525 

that  might  be  made  on  that  side,  there  were  two  battalions  placed  facing  outwards, 
which  covered  the  right  of  the  two  lines.  ..."  These  two  battalions  did  not  fire 
one  shot  at  the  Campbells  and  dragoons  who  broke  the  walls.  ('  Lyon  in  Mourn- 
ing,' i.  361-363.) 

The  evidence  of  Ker  and  the  Rev.  John  Cameron  makes  it  plain  that,  if  leaving 
the  walls  intact  was  "a  fatal  error,"  it  was  the  error  of  Lord  George,  not  of 
.Sullivan.  Meanwhile  Yorke's  rough  sketch  of  the  field,  as  we  saw,  does  not 
represent  any  wall  as  coming  down  to  the  water  of  Nairn.  He  gives  on  the  front 
of  the  Highland  left  two  walled  enclosures  of  irregular  form.  As  far  as  his  chart 
shows,  the  cavalry  could  have  ridden  round  them  and  fallen  on  the  Higliland 
flank.  If  he  is  right,  Ker  is  wrong.  By  Yorke's  showing,  the  walls  were  broken 
down  by  the  Campbells,  who  fired  from  behind  the  wall  of  the  second  enclosure 
on  the  Highland  left  as  they  charged.  (Yorke's  letter  to  his  father  :  Add.  MSS. 
35,354,  f.  224.)  This  is  confirmed  by  a  letter  (April  26)  from  Captain  Duncan 
Campbell  to  Lord  Glenorchy.  He,  indeed,  makes  the  first  "high  wall"  extend 
to  the  water  of  Nairn,  corroborating  Ker.  They  pull  down  a  space  admitting  a 
squadron  abreast,  and  then  break  their  way  into  another  enclosure  and  enfilade 
the  Highland  left  from  behind  its  wall.  The  Campbells  beat  the  second  Highland 
line  before  the  first  Highland  line  is  broken.     (Add.  MSS.  35,451.  ^-  3^-) 

"  Maxwell,  pp.  151,  152. 

*'  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  x.  443. 

5»  Add.  MSS.  35,354,  ff.  218  ei  se^(j. 

*"  Lockhart  Papers,  p.  531. 

''^  Blaikie,  p.  121. 

*■-  Ker,  tii  supra. 

^  See  Appendix,  "The  Death  of  Keppoch." 

^*  Home,  Addendum  to  Appendix. 

*>  Maxwell,  p.  154. 

®^  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  ui  supra. 

^  Dennistoun,  Memoirs  of  Sir  Robert  Strange,  i.  62,  fif. 

«8  Stuart  Papers,  MS. 

<"•  Home,  p.  240,  note  i. 

^"  Maxwell,  pp.  157-159. 

''^  Atholl  Correspondence,  pp.  220,  221. 

"  Athenceum,  March  li,  1899.  Mr  W.  Roberts,  who  here  quotes  the  two 
MS.  orders  by  Lord  George  Murray,  seems  to  aver  that  the  "  No  Quarter"  clause 
does  not  occur  in  a  copy  sold  among  the  Hardwicke  MSS.  The  Hardwicke  MS. 
"  is  identical,  saving  a  few  differences  of  spelling,  with  those  in  the  Duke's 
possession."     The  "No  Quarter"  clause,  then,  must  be  a  malicious  forgery. 

"  Blaikie,  pp.  79,  80. 

^•*  Neil  MacEachain,  New  Monthly  Magazine,  1840;  Blaikie,  pp.  80  and  98-102. 

'°  Murray  of  Broughton,  p.  273. 

7"  Albemarle  Papers,  i.  92,  for  the  torture  inflicted  by  orders  of  Lieut. -Col. 
John  Campbell. 

^■^  Nothing  would  please  me  better  than  to  be  able  to  say  that  my  identification 
of  young  Glengarry  with  Pickle  the  Spy  (1752- 1 760)  has  been  disproved.  But 
no  valid  attempt  at  defence  has  to  my  knowledge  been  offered.  The  authors  of 
'  Clan  Donald  '  (ii.  482  :  1900)  argue  that,  while  Pickle  (Feb.  19,  1760)  offered  to 
Newcastle  to  raise  a  regiment,  "such  an  offer  by  him  [Glengarry]  was  extremely 
improbable,"  so  bad  was  Glengarry's  health.  They  overlook  the  fact  that,  in 
1898,  I  published  ('Companions  of  Pickle,'  p.  252)  the  offer  of  Glengarry  to  raise 


526  NOTES. 

a  regiment.  Thus  he  did  what  it  is  "extremely  improbable"  that  he  should  do. 
He  made  his  offer  in  a  letter  to  the  Duke  of  AthoU  on  April  5,  1760  (cf.  the 
Duke  of  Atholl's  '  Chronicles  of  the  AthoU  and  Tullibardine  Families,'  iii. 
476,  477-  Privately  printed).  On  this  occasion  Glengarry  wrote  in  his  own 
name.  When  Pickle,  on  February  19,  1760,  made  his  offer  to  Newcastle,  he 
spoke  of  himself  as  "  Pickle,"  but  requested  an  answer  to  be  directed  to  "Alex- 
ander Mackdonell  of  Glengarry."  ('Pickle  the  Spy,'  p.  314.  Add.  MSS., 
British  Museum,  32,902.)  Thus  it  seems  that  Pickle  got  no  answer,  or  no 
satisfactory  answer,  from  Newcastle  addressed  to  Glengarry ;  so  two  months 
later  Glengarry  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Atholl,  making  the  same  proposal  as 
Pickle  had  made  to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle.  Evidence  of  this  sort  may  be 
ignored,  but  cannot  be  refuted. 

'^  Life  of  Cumberland,  by  Campbell  MacLachlan,  p.  293 ;  Colonel  E.  M. 
Lloyd,   R.E.,   'Diet.  Nat.  Biog.,'  s.v,   William  Augustus. 

"*  Atholl  MSS.,  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  Report  XH. ;  Appendix 
VHL;  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.   316,  317. 

*"  Coxe's  Pelham. 

^^  See  details  in  the  author's  '  Companions  of  Pickle.' 

8-  Albemarle  Papers,  i.  331-337. 

^  See  the  author's  '  Pickle  the  Spy '  and  '  Life  of  Prince  Charles  Edward 
Stuart.' 

®^  Parliamentary  Debates,  ii.  81,  1 33. 


52/ 


APPENDIX. 


THE    DEATH    OF    KEPPOCH. 


In  the  text  I  have  given  an  account  of  the  behaviour  of  the  Highland  left  wing 
at  CuUoden,  derived  from  the  ofiicial  despatches,  letters,  and  narratives  of  eye- 
witnesses, Jacobite  and  Hanoverian.  In  these  first-hand  contemporary  records 
we  find  no  indignation  expressed  against  the  conduct  of  the  Macdonalds,  and  in 
the  many  statements  by  companions  of  Prince  Charles  in  his  wanderings  he  is 
never  said  to  reproach  the  clan  for  their  behaviour  in  the  field.  The  well-known 
story  that  the  delay,  or  refusal,  of  Keppoch's  regiment  to  charge  caused  Keppoch 
to  cry,  *'  My  God,  have  the  children  of  my  tribe  forsaken  me  ! "  does  not  appear 
in  print,  to  my  knowledge,  before  it  is  given  in  the  last  volume  of  Scott's  '  Tales 
of  a  Grandfather,'  in  1830.  (Slight  variations  in  the  phrase  occur  :  the  words 
were  spoken  in  Gaelic.) 

Though  I  do  not  find  earlier  than  1830  the  report  of  these  melancholy 
words.  Home  gives  an  account  of  the  Death  of  Keppoch  in  his  '  History  of  the 
Rebellion'  (1802).  Home  writes:'  "When  the  Macdonalds'  regiment  retreated 
without  having  attempted  to  attack  sword  in  hand,  Macdonald  of  Keppoch 
advanced  with  his  drawn  sword  in  one  hand  and  his  pistol  in  the  other  :  he  had 
got  but  a  little  way  from  his  regiment  when  he  was  wounded  by  a  musket-shot, 
and  fell.  A  friend,  who  had  followed,  conjuring  him  not  to  throw  his  life  away, 
said  that  the  wound  was  not  mortal, — that  he  might  easily  rally  his  regiment,  and 
retreat  with  them.  Keppoch  desired  him  to  take  care  of  himself,  and,  going  on, 
received  another  musket-shot,  and  fell  to  rise  no  more."" 

Here  Home  does  not  say  that  the  Macdonalds  refused  to  charge  from  a  feeling 
of  injured  pride,  though,  in  a  note,  he  indicates  that  this  was  their  motive.  Lord 
George  Murray,  as  we  saw,  says  that  his  left  wing  did  not  go  in,  "at  least  not 
sword  in  hand  "  ;  and  we  have  quoted  Cumberland's  and  Colonel  Yorke's  evid- 
ence, with  that  of  Ker  of  Graden.  The  whole  line  advanced,  but  the  left  tried  to 
draw  the  English  fire  before  attempting  a  final  rush  through  the  fire  zone.  At 
Prestonpans  the  British  had  "fired  too  soon,"  says  Murray  of  Broughton,  and 
the  left  of  the  Prince's  army  at  CuUoden  tried  to  make  them  do  so  again.  It  is 
especially  to  be  noted  that  Home  (who  is  misinformed)  does  not  describe 
Keppoch  as  making  his  charge  while  his  clan  was  facing  the  foe,  and  might  be 
fired  by  his  example.  Keppoch  advanced  "  when  the  Macdonalds^  reptnent 
retreated."  Whether  Home  wrote  this  on  the  evidence  of  letters  or  written 
reminiscences,  or  of  oral  communications,  he  does  not  inform  us.  That  Home's 
account  had  not  been  published  before  he  gave  it,  appears  from  a  remark  of 
Dr  Angus  Macdonald,   of  the   Keppoch   family,   whose   '  Family   Memoir '  was 

VOL.   IV.  2  L 


528  APPENDIX. 

written  at  intervals  between  iSoi  and  1S20.  Dr  Macdonald  had  heard  tales  of 
the  Rising  from  "  the  few  aged  Highlanders  of  his  clan  who  survived  in  Edin- 
burgh. .  .  .  Keppoch's  name  was  a  guard  against  almost  every  depredation  in 
their  various  marches  and  sojournings."  Dr  Macdonald,  from  the  time  when 
he  could  read,  had  heard  of  the  high  character  of  Keppoch,  especially  from 
Lady  Francis  Wemyss  and  Sir  James  Stewart  of  Coltness,  "but  till  John  Home 
wrote  his  History  [published  1802],  I  do  not  remember  that  any  account  of 
that  accomplished  man's  heroic  death  was  ever  given  to  (he  public  as  he  has 
related  it,"^ 

Home  gives  no  authority,  nor  does  Sir  Walter  Scott,  who  says  that  Lord 
George  Murray  failed  to  make  the  Macdonalds  charge, — an  obvious  error,  as 
Lord  George  was  fighting  on  the  extreme  right.  Scott  must  refer  to  the  Duke 
of  Perth,  who  commanded  on  the  left :  of  him  does  Home  tell  the  anecdote 
that  he  vainly  prayed  the  Macdonalds  to  advance.  Scott  goes  on  :  "  It  was 
equally  in  vain  that  the  gallant  Keppoch  charged  with  a  few  of  his  near  relations, 
while  his  clan,  a  thing  before  unheard  of,  remained  stationary.  The  chief  was 
near  the  front  of  the  enemy,  and  was  exclaiming,  with  feelings  which  cannot  be 
appreciated,  '  My  God,  have  the  children  of  my  tribe  forsaken  me  ! '  At  this 
instant  he  received  several  shots,  which  closed  his  earthly  account,  leaving  him 
only  time  to  advise  his  favourite  nephew  to  shift  for  himself."  •* 

Here  Keppoch  is  not  said,  as  by  Home,  to  fall  a  devoted  victim  of  honour  in 
a  desperate  advance  "when  the  Macdonalds'  regiment  retreated,"  but  to  rush 
on  with  a  few  of  his  kin,  while  his  clan,  still  facing  the  foe,  "  remained  stationary." 
In  fact  he  led,  in  the  usual  manner,  according  to  Scott,  a  charge  in  which  he 
was  not  followed.  Finding  himself  almost  alone,  he  utters  the  reproach  against 
his  clan  which  Home  does  not  assign  to  him,  falls  under  several  shots,  and  bids 
"  his  favourite  nephew  "  shift  for  himself.  The  two  accounts  thus  vary  essentially, 
and  both  are  erroneous,  especially  where  they  imply  that  Keppoch  was  deserted 
by  his  regiment. 

Lord  Mahon  follows  Scott :  "  In  vain  did  Keppoch  rush  forward  to  the 
charge  with  a  few  of  his  kinsmen  ;  the  clan  .  .  .  would  not  follow  :  calmly 
they  beheld  their  chief  brought  to  the  ground  by  several  shots  from  the  enemy  ; 
calmly  they  heard  the  dying  words  which  he  faltered  forth,  '  My  God,  have  the 
children  of  my  tribe  forsaken  me  ! '  Tiius  they  stood  while  the  right  and  centre 
of  their  army  was  put  to  the  rout,  and  then  falling  back  in  good  order  they  joined 
the  remnant  of  the  second  line."  '' 

Here  Lord  Mahon,  more  mistaken  than  his  predecessors,  makes  Keppoch  utter 
his  reproach  after  he  fell,  and  his  version  is  highly  injurious  to  the  whole  clan. 
Neither  Home,  Scott,  nor  Mahon  quotes  the  contemporary  English  despatches 
extant  even  in  the  patchwork  book  called  '  Young  Juha'  (1748),  and  in  the  con- 
temporary Histories  of  the  Rising.  Ker  of  Graden  and  Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell, 
eyewitnesses,  are  both  neglected  :  neither  of  them  describes  the  behaviour  of  the 
Macdonalds  as  unworthy.  Hill  Burton,  who  does  not  mention  Keppoch,  throws 
doubt  on  "  the  accusation  against  the  MacDonalds,  of  having  stood  inactive,  in 
their  wrath  about  the  question  of  precedence."  * 

The  Messrs  Macdonald,  in  'Clan  Donald'  (ii.  665  :  1900),  represent  Keppoch 
as  advancing  with  drawn  sword,  exclaiming,  "  My  God,  has  it  come  to  this,  that 
the  children  of  my  clan  have  forsaken  me!"  He  rushes  forward,  "followed  by 
a  handful  of  his  Lochabcr  clansmen,  among  whom  were  his  brother  Donald,  who 
was  killed,  Angus  Ban  his  son,  and  Donald  Roy  Macdonald  of  Balcshare. 
He  had  not  proceeded  far  when  he  was  struck  by  a  musket-ball  and  fell.     His 


APPENDIX.  529 

kinsmen  then  rallied  round  him,  and  endeavoured  in  vain  to  persuade  him  to 
leave  the  field,  for  he  was  not  yet  mortally  wounded.  lie  advanced  once  more, 
received  another  shot,  and  fell  to  rise  no  more.  At  this  point  his  kinsman, 
Donald  Koy  Macdonald,  rushed  forward  to  help  him,  when  the  gallant  chief, 
looking  at  him,  said,  "O  God,  have  mercy  upon  me  ;  Donald,  do  the  best  you 
can  for  yourself,  for  I  am  gone."     No  authority  is  cited.     ('Clan  Donald,'  ii.  663.) 

As  will  presently  appear,  we  have  the  account  given  to  Bishop  Forbes  by 
Donald  Roy  Macdonald,  and  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  narrative  of  the 
Messrs  Macdonald. 

We  now  turn  to  accounts  given  in  1747-174S  :  first,  we  have  a  compilation, 
by  .in  uncertain  hand,  of  narratives  from  persons  in  London  in  1746-47,  of  whom 
only  one,  M.alcolm  Macleod  of  Krea,  was  at  Culloden.  "  From  the  centre  to  the 
left,  they  [the  clans,  including  '■'■part  of  the  Macdo>ialds"'\  never  got  up  to  give 
their  fire."  Keppoch  was  next  to  the  extreme  left,  held  by  Glengarry  ;  "  Lochiel 
and  Keppoch,  being  both  soon  wounded  in  the  advancing,  were  carried  off,  which 
their  men  observing,  immediately  they  fled,  which  so  alarmed  all  the  corps  to 
the  left  that  they  gave  way  in  confusion."  From  this  account  it  seems,  and  it 
is  true,  that  the  Keppoch  men  charged  with  the  centre  and  right,  Keppoch  at 
their  head.  He  fell,  like  Lochiel,  and,  like  Lochiel,  says  the  narrative,  was 
carried  off  the  field. ^ 

If  Malcolm  Macleod  of  Brea  was  the  source  of  this  information,  it  is  important. 
The  Macleods  are  represented  in  a  map  of  Culloden  moor,  which  appears  to  be 
a  more  carefully  designed  copy  of  Colonel  Yorke's,  as  stationed  between  the 
Mackintoshes  on  their  right  and  the  M.-\cleans  on  their  left ;  the  Clanranald  regi- 
ment was  next,  on  the  Maclean  left,  and  then  came  Keppoch's  regiment.^  It  is 
certain  that  the  Mackintoshes  and  the  Macleans  charged  with  desperate  courage, 
losing  heavily.  The  Macleans,  writes  Lochgarry,  "would  have  been  about 
200.    ...    I  believe  50  of  their  number  did  not  come  off  the  field."* 

Granting,  then,  that  Macleod  of  Brea  is  the  narrator,  and  that  the  Macleods 
were  posted,  as  on  the  map,  so  that  the  Macleans  and  Clanranald  were  between 
them  and  Keppoch's  men,  we  learn  that  "  part  of  the  Macdonalds  "  did,  and  part 
did  not,  "get  up  to  give  their  fire,"  and  that  Keppoch,  like  Lochiel,  "  was  soon 
wounded  in  the  advancing,"  and  was,  like  Locliiel,  "carried  off."  Their  men 
"immediately  fled,"  and  "alarmed  all  the  corps  to  the  left,  so  that  ihey gave  way 
in  covfusiony  This  is  all  unlike  Scott's  version,  "The  three  regiments  of  the 
Macdonalds  were  by  this  time  [after  Keppoch's  fall]  aware  of  the  retreat  of  their 
right  wing,  and  retired  in  good  order  upon  the  second  line."  The  narrative,  which 
may  be  Macleod's,  thus  indicates  that  Keppoch  fell  wounded  in  the  general  charge, 
and  was  carried  off,  but  in  no  way  suggests  that  he  had  reason  to  complain  of 
being  deserted  by  his  clan. 

We  now  come  to  the  evidence  of  Captain  Donald  Roy  Macdonald,  a  brother 
of  Hugh  Macdonald  of  Balishair,  in  North  Uist,  and  a  cadet  of  the  House  of 
Macdonald  of  Sleat.  Donald  Roy  was  a  great  maker  of  Latin  verses,  was  first 
in  Keppoch's  and  later  a  captain  in  Clanranald's  regiment.  A  month  or  two  after 
the  battle  he  composed  a  Latin  poem,  in  which  he  says  that  he  saw  Keppoch  fall, 
but  gives  no  details.  On  January  12,  1748,  he  visited  Bishop  Forbes,  and  "gave 
me  what  follows,"  says  the  Bishop  :'"  "At  the  battle  of  Culloden,  in  the  retreat^ 
Captain  Roy  Macdonald  saw  Keppoch  fall  twice  to  the  ground,  and  kno-ws  no 
more  about  him,  but  that  upon  the  second  fall,  looking  at  Donald  Roy  Macdonald, 
he  spoke  these  words,  'O  God,  have  mercy  upon  me.  Donald,  do  the  best  for 
yourself,  for  I  am  gone."* 


530  APPENDIX. 

We  have  here  the  earliest  recorded  version,  at  first-hand,  of  Scott's  story  about 
Keppoch's  farewell  to  "  his  favourite  nephew  "  (sic),  whom  he  bade  to  "  shift  for 
himself"  ;  and  of  Home's  "friend  who  had  followed.  .  .  .  Keppoch  desired  him 
to  shift  for  himself,  and,  going  on,  received  another  musket-shot,  and  fell  to  rise 
no  more."  We  have  here  also  the  fact  that  Keppoch  "  fell  twice,"  and  we  have 
his  adjuration,  "  O  God  ! "  but  no  word  of  his  being  deserted  by  the  clansmen  of 
his  name.  But  in  Donald  Roy's  account,  as  in  Home's,  Keppoch  falls  "  when  the 
Macdonalds'  regiment  retreated,"  "in  the  retreat," — not,  as  in  Scott  and  Mahon, 
while  his  regiment  faces  the  foe.  Keppoch  falls  twice,  and  utters  his  unselfish 
words — "do  the  best  for  yourself" — after  the  second  fall.  The  Messrs  Mac- 
donald,  in  'Clan  Donald,'  as  we  have  seen,  represent  Donald  Roy  as  rushing 
forward  to  aid  Keppoch  when  he  falls  in  the  advance,  which  is  not  the  version 
given  by  Donald  himself  to  Bishop  Forbes.  Donald  candidly  avers  that  he  took 
Keppoch  at  his  word,  and  did  not  stay  to  assist  in  carrying  him  off  the  field. 

Donald,  "  in  walking  off"  the  field,"  was  struck  by  a  bullet  from  behind,  which 
went  in  at  the  sole  and  out  at  the  buckle  of  his  shoe.  As  he  pursued  his  flight, 
he  passed  another  Macdonald,  of  Belfinlay,  who  had  probably  fallen  early  in  the 
advance,  and  had  both  his  legs  shot  through, '^  "and  was  betwixt  the  fire  of  the 
English  and  that  of  the  few  French  troops  that  made  some  resistance  after  the 
Highlanders  were  routed."  Belfinlay  attests ^'-^  that  Donald  Roy  spoke  to  him 
with  pity  as  he  lay,  but  could  not  help  him,  being  himself  wounded.  "The  big 
bones  of  Belfinlay's  legs  "  were  shattered  above  the  ankles,  by  grape-shot,  as  he 
said,  and  a  piece  of  iron  was  extracted.  ^^  The  evidence  suggests  that  the  Mac- 
donalds  advanced  under  a  heavier  fire  than  has  been  supposed,  while  the  French 
tried  to  cover  their  retiral.  Donald  Roy  was,  later,  in  Skye,  of  great  service  to 
the  Prince  in  the  crisis  of  his  distresses.^* 

I  now  examine  the  version  of  a  compilation  styled  'Young  Juba,  or  the 
History  of  the  Young  Chevalier.  .  .  .  Translated  from  the  original  Italian 
published  at  Rome  by  Mr  Michell,  formerly  Secretary  to  the  Old  Chevalier. 
London,  1748,'  The  early  date,  1748,  alone  makes  it  desirable  to  notice  this 
volume.  Michel  Vezazi  was  a  servant  of  Prince  Charles, — his  va/c-(  de  chavtbre, 
says  Johnstone."  The  patchwork  text  scarcely  even  pretends  to  be  by  Michel 
Vezazi.  In  describing  Culloden,  the  author,  following  an  English  source,  speaks 
of  the  Prince's  army  as  "the  Rebels,"  says  '•'••we  gave  our  men  a  day's  halt  at 
Nairn,"  and  "our  advanced  guard  was  composed  of  about  40  of  Kingston's 
horse.  .  .  ."^*  In  the  following  page  the  author  prints,  with  acknowledgment 
(p.  199),  much  of  Cumberland's  despatch  of  April  18,  1746!  lie  describes  the 
attack  of  the  Highland  left  in  Cumberland's  very  words:  "They  came  down 
three  several  times  within  a  hundred  yards  of  our  men  :  .  .  .  after  these  faint 
attempts  they  made  off.    .    .    ." 

The  author  represents  old  Glengarry  as  receiving  the  Prince,  after  the  battle, 
"  in  the  most  handsome  manner  "  (p.  233).  We  know  that  Invergarry  House  was 
empty,  and  that  a  salmon  was  caught  for  the  hre.ikfast  of  the  fugitives  by  one 
of  themselves.'^  Lochiel,  three  days  later,  "came  to  Glengarry,  where  he  met 
his  unhappy  master  "  (p.  234).  This  is  notoriously  false  :  Charles  had  retired  to 
Glenpean,  and  never  met  Lochiel  ag-iin  till  August  30."  Finally,  Mr  Michell's 
account  of  Keppoch  is  that,  "  being  wounded  in  the  very  heat  and  fury  of  the 
battle,  two  [of  his  clan]  took  hold  of  his  legs,  a  third  supported  his  head,  while 
tlie  rest  posted  themselves  around  him  as  an  inipcnclral)le  bulwark,  and  in  that 
manner  carried  him  from  the  field,  over  llie  small  river  Nairne,  to  a  place  of 
•afcty"  (p.  234).     All  this  although,  according  tt)  the  author,  the  Highland  left 


APPENDIX.  531 

wing  took  no  part  in  "the  heat  and  fury  of  the  battle,"  hut  "made  ofT"  after 
three  "  faint  attempts."  Mr  Michell  represents  Charles  and  Lochiel  as  hearing 
of  Keppoch's  fall  at  Glengarry,  three  days  after  the  battle,  where  they  held,  on 
April  19,  a  meeting  borrowed  from  the  actual  Muirlaggan  meeting  of  May  8,  at 
which  Charles,  of  course,  was  not  present.^" 

The  book  of  '  Young  Juba'  is,  in  fact,  incoherent,  false,  and  self-contradictory, 
but  the  compiler  has  heard  that  Keppoch  fell  "  in  the  heat  and  fury  of  the  action," 
that  he  was  not  deserted,  but  surrounded  by  his  whole  regiment,  and  that  he  was 
carried  to  a  place  of  safety  across  the  Water  of  Nairn.  If  any  or  all  of  these 
statements  in  'Young  Juba'  be  correct,  it  is  by  accident.  The  impudent  author 
makes  the  Prince  stay  with  Lochiel  for  several  weeks,  apparently  after  his  flight 
to  the  isles,  and  go  to  Keppoch  House,  where  he  and  Lochiel  meet  the  clan, 
"just  returned  from  Keppoch's  funeral"  !  (p.  246).  Three  days  later  the  Prince 
"set  out  for  the  isles."  He  really  set  out  on  April  26,  and  never  went  near 
Keppoch  House  after  Culloden.'^** 

I  now  offer  the  reminiscences  of  an  eyewitness,  Angus  Ban  MacDonell,  a  son 
of  Keppoch,  who  fought  at  Culloden.  He  was  then  twenty  years  of  age,  and  his 
reminiscences  were  recorded  in  writing  by  his  son  John,  grandson  of  Keppoch. 
I  owe  the  passage,  with  other  information,  to  Miss  Josephine  MacDonell  of 
Keppoch,  who  has  kindly  given  me  much  valuable  aid.  The  passage  is  written 
in  an  answer  to  queries  by  an  historical  student,  apparently  Dr  Gregory,  author 
of  the  '  History  of  the  Highlands.' 


Notes  of  John  MacDonell,  Son  of  Angus  Ban,  and 
Grandson  of  Keppoch. 

"10.  Query. — Keppoch  was  vexed  that  they  hesitate,  and  called  out,  ^  Mo 
Dhia,  an  do  threig  Clann  mo  chinnidh  niV  (My  God,  have  the  Clansmen  of  my 
name  deserted  me) ;  he  rushed  in  front  of  his  own  regiment,  and  before  he  had 
gone  very  far  he  received  a  musket-shot.  The  rest  of  the  Macdottalds  xvere 
advancing  too,  but  it  was  not  that  shot  that  killed  him,  it  was  the  second  shot 
that  was  mortal.* 

"  14.  When  they  were  carrying  Keppoch  off"  the  field  my  father  said  there  was 
a  lad  from  the  Braes  to  bring  his  own  father  away  too,  badly  wounded,  and  when 
the  man  saw  it  was  the  chief,  he  made  his  son  put  him  down,  as  he  was  gone  any- 
way, and  help  to  save  tlie  body  of  the  chief.  They  brought  him  to  a  bothy  at 
some  distance  away,  thinking  he  would  be  safe  from  the  dragoons,  and  that  they 
could  dress  his  wounds,  but  he  was  dead  by  the  time  they  laid  him  down.  There 
were  a  number  of  other  wounded  men  in  this  bothy,  and  some  were  dead ;  and 
it  was  later  set  fire  to  by  the  orders  of  the  brutal  Cumberland.    .    .    . 

"  15.  The  sword  and  the  dirk  have  not  been  found  ;  t  my  father  took  them  from 
Keppoch's  body  before  he  left  the  bothy,  and  carried  them  all  the  time  he  was 
making  his  way  to  the  Braes  till  he  came  just  above  Keppoch,  and  as  he  was 
closely  pursued  he  plunged  them  one  after  the  other  into  the  moss  as  far  as  his 
arm  could  reach,  while  he  kept  going  on,  and  he  thought  he  knew  the  spot,  but 

*  "They  hesitate"  and  "the  rest  of  the  Macdonalds"  are  understood  to  refer  to 
the  whole  clan,  not  to  Keppoch's  command, 
f  The  dirk-blade  has  since  been  found. 


1  532  APPENDIX. 

1 

I  he  could  never  find  it  again.     They  would  likely  sink  deeper  in  the  bog,  unless  a 

stone  stopped  them.     A  search  has  often  been  made  since,  but  not  a  trace  has 

appeared. 

"The  Keppoch  clan  were  the  last  to  lay  down  their  arms." 

These  notes  are  reminiscences  of  the  conversation  of  Angus  Ban,  and  must  be 
understood  in  the  light  of  sworn  legal  depositions,  which  I  proceed  to  give.  The 
evidence  is  of  July  24,  1752,  and  is  the  basis  of  a  judicial  decreet  (1756)  in  favour 
of  Ranald  MacDonell,  Keppoch's  son,  for  the  evidence  was  accepted  as  proving 
Keppoch's  death  before  his  forfeiture.  Ranald  was  therefore  reinstated  in  lands 
held  under  the  Duke  of  Gordon. 


Register  of    ExCERPT  FROM  DECREET  SUSTAINING  THE  CLAIM  OF  RONALD  MACDONNELL 

^'creeis      _  j^    PROPERTY   OF   THE    LANDS    OF   AUCH-NA-COAHINE   AND   OTHERS. 

^Mackenzie  s 

office), 

vol-  482.  loih  January  1756. 

The  Decreet  narrates,  inter  alia,  that  James  Macdonnell  of  Keilachomet,  John 
Mackennier  in  Auchlorach,  Angus  Ferguson  in  Keppoch,  and  John  Macdonell  in 
Record  Jure.  Blairour  were  summoned  as  witnesses,  and  "  compeared  severally  upon  the  twenty- 
fourth  of  the  said  month  of  July  [1752],  in  presence  of  the  Lord  Justice-Clerk, 
Lord  Ordinary  on  the  oaths  and  witnesses,  and  the  said  James  Macdonell  being 
solemnly  sworn,  purged,  and  interrogate,  He  deponed  that  he  was  with  Alexander 
Macdonell  of  Keppoch  at  the  Battle  of  CuUoden,  and  observing  him  wounded  in 
the  right  arm,  the  Deponent  took  hold  of  him,  and  as  they  were  retireing,  Keppoch 
received  a  shot  tharrow  the  Back,  upon  which  Keppoch  fell,  and  the  Deponent  then 
left  him  lying  on  the  ground  ;  but  the  Deponent  upon  reflection,  after  he  had  gone 
a  few  paces,  returned  back  to  see  whether  Keppoch  was  alive  or  dead,  and  found 
him  dead,  where  he  fell,  and  thereupon  the  Deponent  left  him.  Deponed  then, 
the  Deponent  told  to  many  persons,  immediately  after  the  Battle,  that  Keppoch 
was  killed,  and  that  he  left  him  dead  in  the  field  of  Battle,  and  amongst  others 
told  it  to  John  Macdonald  in  Blairour.  Deponed  that  he  has  heard  it  rumoured 
in  Neighbouring  Countries  that  Keppoch  was  alive  after  the  Battle  of  CuUoden, 
and  that  he  had  been  carried  off  the  field  by  the  Argyle  Shire  Militia,  but  he 
knew  it  to  be  false  from  what  he  had  seen  himself,  and  that  none  of  Keppoch's 
friends  gave  credit  to  any  such  report.  Deponed  that  Keppoch's  Lady  was 
brought  to  bed  on  Sunday  before  the  Battle  of  CuUoden,  which  happened  on 
Wednesday  the  sixteenth  of  Aprile  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fourty-six. 
And  that  the  Deponent  in  his  way  returning  home  after  the  Battle  told  her  of 
her  husband's  being  killed,  for  which  he  was  reproved  by  severall  of  Keppoch's 
friends.  Considering  the  situation  the  Lady  was  then  in  Causa  scientie. 

The  Deponent  was  a  Captain  in  Keppoch's  Regiment  at  the  Battle  of  CuUoden, 
and  s.aw  and  did  as  above  deponed  on,  and  this  was  the  Truth  as  he  should  answer 
to  God.  Tlie  said  John  Mackennier  being  solemnly  sworn,  purged,  and  interro- 
gate in  the  Irish  language  by  Lauchlan  Grant,  writter  in  Edinburgh,  sworn  Inter- 
preter appointed  by  the  said  Lord  Ordinary,  in  respect  the  witness  could  speak  no 
English,  Deponed  that  he,  the  Deponent,  was  a  soldier  in  Keppoch's  Regiment, 
and  was  in  the  Baltic  of  CuUoden  in  the  Company  commanded  by  Macdonell  of 
Tulioch,  and  as  the  Deponent  was  retireing  from  the  Battle  he  observed  Keppoch 
lying  upon  his  face  on  tlie  field,  and  the   Deponent  raising  Keppoch  up  a  little 


APPENDIX.  533 

found  he  was  dead,  and  perceived  that  his  right  arm  was  broke,  and  that  he  was 
wounded  tharrow  the  Body,  about  the  right  pape,  and  observed  some  blood  about 
his  brows,  but  perceived  no  wound  there,  and  thereupon  the  Deponent  went  off 
and  left  him.     Deponed  that  the  Deponent  heard  it  rumoured  in  neighbouring 
Gentries  that  Keppoch  was  alive  after  the  battle,  but  that  the  Deponent  knew  it 
to  be  false.  Causa  scientie patet^  and  this  was  the  Truth  as  he  should  answer  to 
God,  and  deponed  he  could  not  write.     The  said  Angus  Ferguson  being  also 
solemnly  sworn,  purged,  and  interrogate  in  the  Irish  language  by  the  said  Lauchlan 
Grant,  sworn  Interpreter  appointed  as  aforesaid  in  respect  the  witness  could  speak 
no  English,   Deponed  that  he,  the  Deponent,  was  servant  to  Keppoch  at  the 
Battle  of  Culloden,  and  acted  as  a  Serjant  in  his  Company,  and  in  lime  of  the 
action  he  observed  Keppoch  receive  a  wound  in  his  right  arm,  and  at  the  same 
time  Keppoch,  observing  his  Brother  Donald,  who  commanded  a  Company  that 
day  in  Keppoch's  Regiment,  advanceing  with  his  Company  beyond  the  line  of 
Battle  towards  the  King's  Troops,  Keppoch  sent  the  Deponent  with  a  message  to 
his  Brother  Donald  desiring  him  to  keep  in  the  line  with  his  Company,  and  the 
Deponent  returning  in  a  few  minutes  found  Keppoch  lying  Dead  upon  the  field 
much  about  the  place  where  he  left  him  ;   and  the  Deponent,  taking  hold  of 
Keppoch  as  he  was  lying  with  his  face  downward,  observed  that  his  right  arm 
was  broke,  and  that  he  was  shot  in  the  Body  below  the  right  pape.     Deponed 
that  he  told  no  Body  after  he  returned  from   the   Battle  for  some   time,    that 
Keppoch  was  killed,  and  his  reason  for  so  doing  was  that  he  understood  Keppoch's 
friends  were  angry  with  Mr  Macdonell  of  Keilachomet,  a  former  Deponent,  for 
acquainting  Lady  Keppoch  of  her  husband's  death,  because  of  the  Lady's  situa- 
tion at  the  time,  she  being  in  child-bed.     Deponed  that  he  has  heard  it  reported 
in  Neighbouring  Countries  that  Keppoch  was  alive  after  the  Battle,  but  that  the 
Deponent  knew  the  report  to  be  false  and  without  any  foundation.  Causa  scientie 
patet,  and  this  was  the  Truth  as  he  should  answer  to  God,  and  Deponed  he  could 
not  write.     And  the  said  John  Macdonell  in  Blairour  being  also  solemnly  sworn, 
purged,   and  interrogate,    Deponed    that   he,    the   Deponent,   was   an   officer  in 
Keppoch's   Regiment,   and  was   present   and   in    the   action  at  Culloden,    That 
immediately  after  the   Battle  was  over  he  was  told  by  Mr  Macdonell  of  Keil- 
achomet that  Keppoch  was  killed  and  left  dead  on  the  field,  and  Deponed  that 
he  saw  Keppoch  that  Day  advanceing  upon  the  head  of  his  Regiment  in  time  of 
the  action  towards  the  Regular  Troops,  and  that  he  himself  never  saw  him  since, 
nor  ever  saw  any  other  person  that  seed  him,  and  that  Keppoch's  Lady  and  his 
friends  believe  that  he  was  actually  killed   on    that    Day.     Deponed    that   the 
Deponent  has  heard  it  rumoured  in  neighbouring  Countries  that  Keppoch  was 
alive  after  the  Battle  of  Culloden,  but  the  Deponent  believes  the  Report  to  be 
false,  and  has  reason  to  believe  so.     Considering  he  lives  near  to  Keppoch's 
house,  and  his  connection  with  the  family,  that  if  Keppoch  was  alive  it  would 
not  have  been  concealed  from  him  ;  and  further  Deponed  that  several!  others 
besides  Mr  Macdonell  of  Keillachomet  told  him  that  they  saw  Keppoch  dead  in 
the  field,  Causa  scientie  patet,  and  this  was  tlie  Truth  as  he  should  answer  to  God. 
Which  oaths  of  the  said  James   Macdonell  and  John  Macdonell  are  signed  by 
them  respectively  and  the  said  Lord  Ordinary.     And  the  oaths  of  the  said  John 
Mackennier  and  Angus  Ferguson  are  signed  by  the  said  Lauchlan  Grant  and  the 
said  Lord  Ordinary,  as  the  said  oaths  extant  in  process  bears."     Claim  to  lands 
sustained.  * 

*  The  place-names  are  Keilachomet  =  Kinachonate,  or  Kilachonat  ;  Auchlorach  = 
Achluachrach  ;  Blairour  =  BIarour.     Mackennier  may  be  Macinnies. 


534  APPENDIX. 

From  this  unimpeachable  testimony,  candid  as  it  obviously  is,  we  see  that,  at 
the  moment  of  his  first  wound,  Kepporh  was  leading  on  his  whole  regiment. 
It  follows  that  his  famous  words,  "  My  God,  have  the  clansmen  of  my  name 
deserted  me  ! "  as  quoted  in  the  reminiscences  of  Angus  Ban,  given  above, 
must  have  been  spoken  during  a  moment  of  hesitation,  when  orders  to  ad- 
vance were  first  given.  The  words  had  their  natural  effect.  The  clan  followed 
their  chief  into  the  fire  zone,  and  one  company,  that  of  Keppoch's  brother 
Donald,  even  needed  to  be  checked,  so  as  to  preserve  "  the  line  of  battle." 
At  that  moment  Keppoch's  right  arm  was  shattered  :  he  gave,  however,  the 
command  to  keep  the  line.  But  the  efTects  of  the  heavy  round  musket-bullet,  or 
grape-shot,  half  paralysed  him,  and  Macdonell  of  Keilachomet  was  supporting 
him  for  a  few  steps  towards  the  rear,  when  he  fell,  mortally  wounded.  As  his 
son  says,  "it  was  the  second  shot  that  was  mortal."  Pie  does  not,  as  far  as 
his  words  are  reported,  say  that  the  second  shot  was  received  in  a  second  attempt 
to  advance. 

Apparently  the  kinsmen  of  Keppoch  perceived  sparks  of  life  in  him,  which 
the  three  witnesses  of  1752  failed  to  discover.  They  bore  him  to  a  hut,  but 
he  was  dead  when  they  left  him  there.     The  clan  bard  thus  sings : — 


Lament  composed  to  Keppoch,  killed  at  Culloden,  by  his  own 
Bard,  Alastair  Cameron  in  Dochanasaidh. 

Literal  Translation. 

1st  Verse.         A  fortnight  before  the  first  of  May 

Misfortune  [or  loss]  fell  sorely  upon  us, 
As  we  were  marshalled  in  rank 
Against  an  enemy  on  a  height. 
-   ■ '  We  left  the  Chief  of  the  Braes  * 

On  the  field  of  Battle  without  breath  of  life, 

And  none  of  his  relatives  to  staunch  the  blood  of  his  wound. 

Last  Verse,         Painful  to  me  the  scattering 

That  overtook  the  army  of  the  North, 

And  not  the  least  cause  of  my  sorrow 

Among  the  losses  we  sustained 

MacRanald  f  of  Keppoch 

(Who  was  no  weakling  in  his  harness  of  steel, 

A  most  intrepid  leader  of  men)  : 

Cause  of  the  shock  of  sorrow  his  being  in  the  grave.:^ 

•  The  Braes  of  Lochaber.         t  The  patronymic  of  the  chief.         }  Crave  is  used  figuratively. 

The  poem  is  translated  by  Miss  Josephine  MacDonell,  who  kindly  communi- 
cates it.  I  need  not  give  the  copious  contemporary  evidence  as  to  that  general 
disbelief  in  Keppoch's  death  which  is  attested  by  the  witnesses  of  1752.  The 
actual  truth  is  now  plain,  and  the  Keppoch  Macdonalds  are  entirely  cleansed 
of  the  charge  of  deserting  their  chief  in  the  action.  It  is  evident  that  the  clan 
charged  with  the  chief,  and  that  the  company  of  his  brother  Donald  (who  also 
fell  in  fight)  even  outran  the  line.     Ytom  Mackcnnier's  evidence  it  is  clear  that. 


APPENDIX.  535 

as  Keppoch's  body  was  discovered  by  him  "when  retireing,"  the  advance  con- 
tinued after  the  chief  was  down.  To  account  for  the  casualties  in  the  advance, 
as  the  infantry  of  the  enemy  did  not  fire,  we  must  accept  the  evidence  that  grape- 
shot  was  galling  the  Highland  left.  Scothouse,  with  twenty  of  his  following,  also 
fell,  as  we  learn  from  the  Memoirs  of  one  of  the  family.  With  Scothouse, 
KepfXJch,  and  his  brother  down,  the  advance  ceased.  The  discrepant  evidence 
of  Donald  Roy  Macdonald  must  be  due  to  confusion  of  memory — though,  as  he 
testified  four  years  before  the  witnesses  of  1752,  he  had  little  excuse  for 
inaccuracy — or  to  some  other  cause,  about  which  we  can  only  conjecture. 


1  Home,  p.  239. 

2  Home,  p.  239. 

'  A  Family  Memoir  of  the  Macdonalds  of  Keppoch,  by  Angus  Macdonald,  M.D. : 
1885. 

*  Tales  of  a  Grandfather,  Third  Series,  chap,  xxiii. 
5  Mahon,  iii.  437  :  1839. 

*  History  of  Scotland,  viii.  490,  49r. 
''  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.  67,  68. 

*  King's  Maps,  British  Museum,  H.  Tab.  48  (22). 

*  Blaikie,  p.  121. 

10  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  4-6. 

11  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  4. 

12  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  248. 
1*  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  230. 
^*  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ii.  20. 
1*  Johnstone,  p.  2. 

1'  Young  Juba,  p.  199. 

1^  Blaikie,  p.  46,  note  3 ;  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.  191,  321 

18  Blaikie,  pp.  46,  68. 

1*  The  Lyon  in  Mourning,  i.  88 ;  Home,  p.  384 

20  Blaikie,  pp.  46,  47. 


INDEX. 


Abbot,  Dr,  Abp.  of  Canterbury,  ii,  488  ; 
cited,  569. 

Aberbrothock  {see  also  Arbroath) — 
Abbey  of,  i.  129. 
Parliament  at  (1320),  i.  230. 

Abercorn,  Earl  of,  ii.  544,  545  ;  iii.  16. 

Abercromby,  Father,  cited,  ii.  494. 

Abercromby,  Robert,  ii.  459. 

Aberdeen — 

Assembly  at  (1605),  ii.  481-484. 
Montrose's  victory  and  alleged  mass- 
acre at  (1644),  iii.  126-127. 
University  of,  iv.  409-411. 

Aberdeen,  1st  Earl  of,  iii.  369,  376  ; 
iv.   137. 

Aberdeen,  2nd  Earl  of,  iv.  356-357. 

Aboyne,  3rd  Earl  of,  iv.  190. 

Aboyne,  Viscount,  iii.  22. 

Aboyne,  Viscount  (James)  (1639),  with 
Royalist  forces,  iii.  57-59,  66  ;  with 
Montrose,  112,  144,  147,  149,  155; 
exploits  of,  141;  recruiting,  150; 
leaves  Montrose,  156,  159  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,   106,   108. 

Acca,  ]5p.  of  Hexham,  i.  44. 

Act  of  Peace  and  War  (1703),  iv.  91. 

Act  of  Security  (1704),  iv.  91,  100. 

Adam,  William,  iv.  410. 

Adamnan,  i.  74 ;  cited,  38,  72-73. 

Adamson,  Patrick,  Abp.  of  .St  Andrews, 
disease  of,  ii.  292  ;  doings  in  London, 
298-299  ;  fall  and  reinstatement  of, 
318-319;  Melville's  desire  for  ex- 
communication of,  350 ;  fall  of,  353' 
354  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  253,  257, 

296,  330.  349.  43 1  • 
Advocates  for  poor  suitors,  i.  303. 
iEthelfrith,  King,  i.  32. 
.^thelstan.  King  of  England,  i.  46-47, 

498. 
Affleck,  ii.  270,  271. 
Afren,  Clan,  i.  186,  496. 
Agnes  of  Dunbar,  Countess  of  March, 

i.  247,  251,  254. 


Agnew  of  Lochnaw,  iii.  370. 
Agricola,  i.  5-7. 
Agricultural  club,  iv.  420. 
Agriculture,  i.    139-140,   155;   iv.  372- 

375.  388-392. 
Aidan,  King,  i.  29,  31,  38. 
Aidan,  St,  i.  33  ;  vision  of  death  of,  71. 
Aikenhead,  Thomas,  iv.  56-57. 
Ailesbury,   Lord,   cited,   iii.   293,   369, 

385.  414- 
Ailred  (/Ethelred),   Abbot  of  Rivaux, 

cited,  i.  105-106,  108,  127. 
Ainslie's  band,  ii.  182-184. 
Aird  (preacher),  iii.  323. 
Airlie,  ist  Earl  of,  iii.  54,  74,  123,  132, 

137,  150,  155.  157- 

Airlie,  2nd  Earl  of,  iii.  246,  333,  368. 

Airlie  Castle,  iii.  75. 

Airy,  Osmond,  cited,  iii.  284,  285,  291 
note,  293  note,  341. 

Alan  (Alesius),  i.  430-431  ;  controversy 
with  Cochloeus,  432  ;  cited,  425. 

Alban — 

Bishop  of,  i.  44. 
Kings  of,  i.  43. 

Albany,  Duke  of  (Robert,  Earl  of  Fife), 
Governor  of  the  kingdom,  i.  283-284  ; 
superseded  by  Rothesay,  285  ;  impli- 
cated in  murdering  Rothesay,  286- 
287,  298 ;  attempts  to  ransom  his 
son,  289,  292  ;  garrisons  Dingwall, 
292  ;  James's  letters  to,  from  captiv- 
ity, 292-293  ;  the  Foul  Raid,  293  ; 
death  and  estimate  of,  ib.  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,   275,  276. 

Albany,  Duke  of  (Murdoch),  i.  292, 
296,  302. 

Albany,  Duke  of  (Protector  of  James 
v.),  summoned  to  Scotland,  i.  392; 
taking  of  Stirling,  394-395 ;  feud  with 
Home,  394-397  ;  negotiates  treaty  of 
Rouen,  397  ;  Margaret's  veering  to, 
398-399;  clamour  against,  400; 
outfaced  by  Dacre,  400-401  ;  retires 


538 


INDEX. 


to  France,  403  ;  renounced  by  Par- 
liament, 406  ;  impetuosity  of,  403  ; 
mentioned,  393. 

Albany,  Alexander  of,  i.  300,  302,  316. 

Albany,  James  Stuart  of,  i.  302. 

Albany,  Walter  of,  i.  300. 

Albemarle,  2nd  Earl  of,  iv.  521. 

Alberoni,  Cardinal,  iv.  262-265,  267- 
269,  351.  352,  354. 

Alexander  I.,  King,  i.  99-101. 

Alexander  II.,  King,  i.  11 8- 1 20,  170, 
174,   197- 

Alexander  III.,  King,  i.  120-125,  13O1 
155,  170. 

Alexander,  Sir  Wm.     See  Stirling. 

Allen,  Cardinal,  ii.  282,  334,  363. 

Almond,  Lord.     See  Callendar. 

Amelot,  iv.  438,  440,  448. 

Amiens,  Treaty  of,  i.  192. 

Amisfield,  Alexander  Charteris  of,  iii. 
230. 

Amnesty,  restrictions  on,  i.  342,  349. 

Ancrum,  Ker  of,  ii.  504,  542. 

Anderson,  Dr,  cited,  i.  77,  86. 

Anderson  (preacher),  ii.  408. 

Andreas  (astrologer),  i.  358. 

Andrezel  cited,  iv.  148. 

Angus,  House  of,  i.  364,  369. 

Angus,  Earl  of  (Gilbert  de  Umfraville), 
i.  178,  186-187,  202,  235,  245. 

Angus,  Earl  of  (1347),  i.  257. 

Angus,  Earl  of  (1406),  i.  287. 

Angus,  2nd  Earl  of  (William  Douglas), 
i.  305. 

Angus,  3rd  Earl  of,  i.  325. 

Angus,  4th  Earl  of  (the  Red  Douglas), 
i-  327,  11^,  335,  356. 

Angus,  5th  Earl  of  (Archibald  Bell  the 
Cat),  at  Lauder  Bridge,  i.  345  ;  in 
disgrace,  346 ;  receives  Lordship  of 
Bothwell,  364 ;  stripped  of  lands, 
ih.,  387  ;  at  Flodden,  390-391  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  349,  351,  361. 

Angus,  6th  Earl  of,  Queen  Margaret's 
marriage  with,  i.  393  ;  relations  with 
his  wife,  398  ;  feud  with  Arran,  398- 
399 ;  withdraws  to  France,  400 ; 
returns,  404,  407  ;  James's  attitude 
tow-ards,  409-411,  413,  415;  "Turn 
Again,"  410,  444  ;  makes  his  defence, 
413-414;  forfeited,  414;  Henry's 
efforts  for  restitution  of,  436,  445  ; 
at  Madden  Rig,  451  ;  restored  to 
estates  and  i)osition,  459,  465  ; 
treason  of,  463,  469,  ii.  2  ;  jiledges 
loyalty  to  Arran,  i.  475  ;  lieutenant 
of  the  Border,  478;  Ilenry's  reward 
for  trapping  of,  4S0 ;  Ancrum  Moor, 
//'.  ;  stultifies  efforts  of  Scottish  and 
P'rench  forces,  482,  483  ;  appointed 
I'rivy  Councillor  by  Henry,  492;  at 


Pinkie  on  Scottish  side,  ii.  9-1 1  ;  de- 
feats Wharton,  1 2  ;  trial  of  Wallace, 
19  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  392,  394- 
395,  397,  408,  418,  433,  462. 

Angus,  8th  Earl  of,  plot  of,  to  seize 
James,  ii.  270 ;  forfeited,  279 ;  plot 
with  Walsingham  to  seize  James, 
281  ;  joins  band  against  Lennox, 
284 ;  admitted  to  the  king's  peace, 
288,  289  ;  plot  against  James,  295- 
297  ;  banished,  295  ;  forfeited,  300; 
extradition  of,  desired  by  James, 
304  ;  alleged  plot  by  James  against, 
311;  defends  Mary,  324-325;  ar- 
rested on  Arran's  accusation,  336 ; 
made  Warden  on  the  West  Marches, 
341  ;  death  of,  ib.  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 260,  309,  317,  333. 

Angus,  9th  Earl  of  (Douglas  of  Glen- 
bervie),  ii.  341,  345,  347,  348,  369. 

Angus,  loth  Earl  of,  implicated  in  the 
Spanish  Blanks,  ii.  363 ;  warded, 
364  ;  escapes,  365  ;  offers  trial  for 
Spanish  Blanks  affair,  380-382 ;  for- 
feited, 388 ;  reports  against,  476. 

Angus,  nth  Earl  of,  iii.  16. 

Angus,  1 2th  Earl  of,  iv.  3,  22. 

Angus  MacFergus,  king,  i.  36,  42. 

Angus  the  Culdee  cited,  i.  27. 

Anjou,  Duke  of,  ii.  233,  234. 

Annandale,  Earl  of  (1292).     See  Bruce. 

Annandale,  Earl  of,  iv.  26-28,  30-32,  72, 
83,  90,  100,  loi,  122,  137,  184,  195, 
214,  356. 

Anne,  Queen,  accession  of,  iv.  81  ; 
efforts  for  the  Union,  81,  84,  105  ; 
succession  question,  91,  97-99,  106 ; 
disapproves  Act  of  Security,  92 ; 
Queensberry  Plot,  96 ;  present  at 
Lords'  debate,  100 ;  affair  of  The 
Worcester,  104  ;  .attack  of  gout,  114  ; 
death  of,  170;  Toleration  Act  of, 
327 ;  generosity  to  Aberdeen  Uni- 
versity, 409 ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
127,   129,    152,   164,    190,  412. 

Anne  of  Brittany,  Queen  of  France, 
i-  375,  376. 

Anne  of  Denmark,  Queen,  marriage  of, 
vn\\\  James  VI.,  ii.  348 ;  anointing 
of,  349 ;  hatred  of  Maitland,  366, 
1)^1^  374  ;  opposed  to  James,  374 ; 
plots  with  Buccleuch  and  Cessford, 
395-396  ;  blames  Maitland,  397  ;  the 
Cowrie  Conspiracy,  458,  465  ;  quar- 
rels with  courtiers,  473,  475  ;  in- 
trigues .against  Mar,  477  ;  converted 
to  Catholicism,  34S,  494-495  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  347,  357,  361,  373, 
398,  406,  446. 

Anointing  of  kings  or  queens,  i.  130, 
242-243,  269  ;  'ii.  349. 


INDEX. 


539 


Anstruther,  Lord,  cited,  iv.  57. 
Antoninus,  wall  of,  i.  9. 
Antrim,  Earl  of,  iii.  53,  108,  114. 
Aodh,  King,  i.  43  ;  royal  house  of,  56. 
Appin,  Stewart  of  (159 1),  ii.  356. 
Appin,  Stewart  of  (1715-1744),  iv.  191, 

192,  196,  451. 
Appin,  Stuarts  of,  i.  372. 
Arbroath    Abbey,    i.    471.      See    also 

Aberbrothock. 
Arbroath,    Hamilton   (Lord  John)   of, 

entertains   Angus   marriage    project, 

ii.     258-259 ;    Morton's    attack    on, 

263 ;    flight  and    banishment,    264  ; 

forfeiture,    265 ;    Elizabeth's    efforts 

for,   266. 
Archery,  i.  187,  199. 
Architecture — 

Celtic,  i.  64,  68. 

Ecclesiastical,  i.  158. 

Irish,  i.  68. 
Ardentinnie,  Campbell  of,  iv.  no. 
Ardkinglas,  Campbell  of  (1584- 1603), 

ii-  355-356,  393.  528-529. 
Ardkinglas,    Campbell   of    (1692),    iv. 

40-42. 
Ardnamurchan,     Angus     Maclan     of 

(1346),  i.  256. 
Ardnamurchan,    Maclan  of  (1494),   i. 

366,  370-372,   397-398. 
Ardres,  Peace  of,  ii.  3. 
Ardstinchar,    Sir   Hugh    Kennedy    of, 

i.  308. 
Ardtornish,  i.  63-64 ;  burned,  iv.  520. 
Ardtornish,  Treaty  of,  i.  336-337,  342, 

483,.  507,  509- 
Ardvoirlich,  Stewart  of,  iii.  123,  I40. 
Argentine,  Sir  Giles  de,  i.  223. 
Argyll  under  Clan  Dougal,  i.  119,  239  ; 

converted  to  a  sheriffdom  and  under 

Campbells,  119,  152. 
Argyll,    House   of,  i.    251,    358,    371, 

372,   398.     See  also  Campbell. 
Argyll,   1st  Earl   of,    police   work    of, 

342,  358  ;  immures  Donald  Dubh,  i. 

343.  371,  482,  507,  508;  negotiates 
a  peace,  347  ;  in  rebellion,  349 ; 
Chancellor,  361  ;  besieges  Dumbar- 
ton, 362  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  345, 

359- 

Argyll,  2nd  Earl  of,  i.  366,  372 ;  at 
Flodden,  379. 

Argyll,  3''d  Earl  of.  Lieutenant  of  the 
Isles,  i.  398 ;  joined  by  the  king, 
412  ;  death  of,  417  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 397,  407,  416. 

Argyll,  4th  Earl  of,  imprisoned,  i.  417  ; 
regent,  460 ;  Donald  Dubh's  truce 
with,  508  ;  wavering  treason  of,  ii.  2  ; 
at  Pinkie,  10 ;  besieges  Brought)' 
Castle,  12  ;  warns  Hamilton  against 


persecutions,  42  ;  death  of,  38;  other- 
wise mentioned,  i.  452,  465  ;  ii.  24, 

31.  35.  37- 

Argyll,  5th  Earl  of,  with  Moray  at 
Lochleven,  ii.  143-144;  conspiracy 
against  Riccio,  159;  "Protestation 
of  Huntly  and  Argyll,"  170-172; 
band  for  Darnley's  murder,  182,  195  ; 
with  Mary  at  Langside,  196  ;  deserts 
Mary  for  Lennox,  237,  242 ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  30,  34,  37,  51- 
53.  56,  57,  61.  127,  138,  140,  142, 
145,  152,  154,  157,  164,  165,  190, 
216,  227,  228. 

Argyll,  6th  Earl  of,  forced  to  surrender 
Mary's  jewels,  ii.  251,  260  ;  plot  of, 
against  James,  281 ;  joins  band  against 
Lennox,  284;  death  of,  355  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  258,  261-262,  292, 

293- 

Argyll,  7th  Earl  of,  wardship  of,  ii. 
355  ;  band  against,  356,  358  ;  holds 
James's  commission,  389 ;  at  Glen- 
rinnes,  392  -  393  ;  discovers  band 
against  himself,  393 ;  warded,  394 ; 
feud  with  Huntly  pacified,  475,  478  ; 
relations  with  Highland  chiffs,  528- 
529,  533-534 ;  recovers  Kintyre  and 
Isla,  535 ;  turns  Catholic,  ib. ;  in 
Spain,  537 ;  exile  and  death  of, 
iii.   47. 

Argyll,  Marquess  of  (8th  Earl)  (Gillespie 
Grumach),  quells  Maclans,  ii.  537, 
iii.  7  ;  joins  popular  party,  41  ; 
ravages  Badenoch,  54 ;  declines  to 
sit  on  War  Committee,  74 ;  given 
commission  of  fire  and  sword,  ib.  ; 
orders  burning  of  Bonnie  House  o' 
Airlie,  75-76,  151  ttole ;  checked  by 
Montrose,  77-78  ;  learns  of  Cumber- 
nauld band,  86 ;  accused  by  Mon- 
trose, 87,  91  ;  has  Lady  well  hanged, 
89  and  note ;  Hamilton's  alliance 
with,  92,  102;  "the  Incident,"  92- 
99  ;  created  Marquess,  1 00  ;  opera- 
tions against  Gordons,  116;  Col- 
kitto's  exploits  against,  120;  baffled 
by  Montrose,  128 ;  retreats  to  Inver- 
ary,  129  ;  hurt  in  the  shoulder,  130 
and  note,  132  ;  the  rout  at  Inverlochy, 
133  and  note ;  exchanges  prisoners, 
145  ;  burns  House  of  Menstrie,  151 
and  note  ;  hampers  Baillie  at  Kilsyth, 
153.  155  ;  protestations  to  Charles, 
177  ;  speech  to  English  Parliament, 
178-179  ;  share  of  English  pay,  183  ; 
instigates  Dunavertie  massacre,  184 
and  note  ;  overrides  J  lamilton,  186; 
challenges  Lindsay,  188-189  and 
7iote :  in  alliance  with  Cromwell, 
'95.   197  ;   deserts  his  Highlanders, 


540 


INDEX. 


196 ;  entertains  Cromwell,  197 ; 
Amalekites  classified  by,  198 ;  in  a 
dilemma,  199,  200 ;  Huntly's  estates 
conveyed  to,  209  note;  question  as 
to  assurances  by,  for  Montrose's 
safety,  222-223;  negotiations  as  to 
marriage  of  his  daughter  with  Charles 
II.,  229,  250-251  ;  makes  Charles 
sign  declaration  against  his  father 
and  mother,  233  ;  Charles's  promises 
to,  245  ;  against  extremist  preachers, 
248  ;  crowns  Charles,  249 ;  against 
Engagers,  251  ;  in  contempt,  256, 
257  ;  relations  with  Monk  and  Lil- 
burne,  262,  267,  268,  273-275,  296, 
and  notes  ;  ruinous  position  of,  267  ; 
compromising  behaviour  as  to  Dow- 
art  Castle,  268,  270 ;  financial  em- 
barrassments of,  275  ;  holds  a  Pro- 
testers' Communion,  286  ;  arrested, 
287  ;  tried,  295  -  296 ;  sentenced, 
296 ;  refuses  escape,  297  ;  executed, 
297-298  ;  estimate  of,  41,  45  ;  Ham- 
ilton's estimate  of,  42  note;  Gar- 
diner's estimate  of,  178  ;  traditional 
estimate  of,  339 ;  unpopularity  of, 
275,  277 ;  worthlessness  of  states- 
manship, 178-179  ;  career  of,  47-48  ; 
portraits  of,  ii.  535,  iii.  48 ;  Instruc- 
tions to  his  son,  201  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  36,  40,  69,  105,  112, 
150,  218,  230. 
Argyll,  9th  Earl  of  (Lord  Lome), 
marriage  of,  iii.  102 ;  at  Montrose's 
humiliation,  218,  219;  of  Cavalier 
party,  257,  267,  287,  295,  365  ;  at 
feud  with  Glencaim,  268  atui  note ; 
forfeited,  272  ;  secures  Cargill's 
death,  364  ;  position  of  (168 1),  365  ; 
escapes,  368 ;  treason  of,  379-380 ; 
rising  (1685),  398-407  ;  differences 
with  Lowland  allies,  398-403  ;  taken, 
404 ;  condemned,  405  ;  confessions, 
405  ;  execution,  406  ;  unpopularity 
of>  397;   otherwise  mentioned,   115, 

233.  30>- 

Argyll,  1st  Duke  of,  supports  Lovat 
interest,  iv.  73,  75,  94 ;  feud  with 
Tullibardine,  74-75  ;  Commissioner 
of  Union,  84  ;  secures  Queensberry's 
support,  90 ;  estimate  of,  87  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  1-2,  75,  89. 

Argyll,  2nd  Duke  of  (Red  John  of  the 
J'.atlles),  Royal  Commissioner,  iv. 
101,  105-107  ;  nomination  of  Union 
Commission,  I  lO  ;  speech  against  the 
Union,  164  ;  proclaims  George  I., 
1 70- 17 1  ;  commander-in-chief  against 
Jacobites,  184,  192;  saves  Edin- 
burgh, 198  ;  destroys  fords  of  Forth, 
215;    Sheriffmuir,   2i6,   218;    Mar's 


attempts  to  treat  with,  221  ;  Cado- 
gan's  report  on,  227-228,  232  ;  Jaco- 
bites'appeal  to,  231  ;  Mar's  overtures 
to,  251  ;  sounded  for  James,  259  ; 
reconciled  to  George  I.,  260;  sup- 
ported by  Grange,  296  ;  brush  with 
the  Sqiiadrone,  355-357 ;  communi- 
cations with  James  Keith,  436 ; 
estimate  of,  87  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
ii.  528  ;  iv.  121,  133,  152-153,  163, 
183,   214,   224,    225,  229,  242,    291, 

354,  419,  431-433- 

Argyll,  3rd  Duke  of  (Lord  Archibald 
Campbell,  Earl  of  Islay),  at  Sheriff- 
muir, iv.  218  ;  warns  Lockhart,  335  ; 
in  malt-tax  dispute,  362  ;  Secretary 
for  Scotland,  363  ;  hostile  to  Tweed- 
dale,  460;  otherwise  mentioned,  no, 
156,  164,  192-194,  212,  213,  225, 
296,  378,  428,  431,  521. 

Argyll,  Alexander  of,  i.  214. 

Argyll,  Duncan  Campbell  of,  i.  295 

Argyll,  John  of,  i.  210,  217. 

Argyll,  Lady,  ii.  249,  251,  263, 

Armada,  Spanish,  ii.  340,  342. 

Arms,  early  Pictish,  i.  60,  85. 

Armstrong  (1563),  ii.  130-131. 

Armstrong,  Hector,  ii.  224. 

Armstrong,  Tom,  case  of,  ii.  524. 

Armstrongs,  i.  409,  411,  416;  ii.  24; 
iii.  274. 

Army,  composition  of,  under  feudalism, 

i-  153-154- 

Arniston,  Dundas  of,  iv.  103,  no. 

Arran,  Countess  of  (1584),  ii.  303,  310. 

Arran,  Earl  of  (Sir  Thos.  Boyd),  i.  339- 
340. 

Arran,  1st  Earl  of  (James  Harrington), 
during  James  V.'s  minority,  i.  392, 
393,  397 ;  relations  with  Albany, 
396;  feud  with  Angus,  398-399; 
intrigues  with  France,  406  ;  pensioner 
of  England,  407 ;  joined  by  the 
king,  410  ;  in  condemnation  of  the 
Douglases,  504-505;  death  of,  415; 
otherwise  mentioned,  373,  376,  403- 
405,  408,  410. 

Arran,  2nd  Earl  of.     See  Chatelherault. 

Arran,  3rd  Earl  of,  in  France,  ii.  56- 
57  ;  project  for  marriage  with  Eliza- 
beth, 57,  93,  95  ;  meets  Elizabeth, 
60  ;  repulses  the  French,  63  ;  project 
of  marriage  with  Mary,  95  ;  retires 
from  Court,  105,  108  ;  alliance  with 
Bothwcll,  III;  alleges  Bothwell's  plot 
to  seize  the  Queen,  111-113;  mad- 
ness of,  95,  97,  111-113,  129,  164, 
362  ;  in  Draffen  Castle,  258  ;  Capt. 
James  Stewart  appointed  tutor  of, 
271  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  51,  61, 
71,   109. 


INDEX. 


541 


Arran,  Earl  of  (James  Stewart), 
d'Aubigny's  intimacy  with,  ii.  264 ; 
denounces  Morton  in  Council,  269 ; 
appointed  tutor  to  mad  Arran,  271  ; 
seduces  and  marries  Lady  March, 
279;  scheme  to  murder,  281  ;  taken 
prisoner  by  Gowrie,  285,  288 ;  in 
James's  favour,  293  ;  crushes  Angus 
plot,  296-297  ;  Craig's  prophecy  re- 
garding, 301  ;  influence  of,  303 ; 
Gray's  plot  against,  305,  313  ;  Huns- 
don's  negotiations  with,  308-309 ; 
letter  to  Hunsdon  reporting  plot, 
308  atid  note ;  warded  in  St  An- 
drews and  released  by  Gray,  314 ; 
discourted,  315,  316;  proclaimed  a 
traitor,  316 ;  accuses  members  of 
Council,  336 ;  recalled  by  James, 
362;  death  of,  316,  423;  learning 
of,  561  ;  Hunsdon's  estimate  of,  307, 
308,  310;  otherwise  mentioned,  268, 

277,  295- 
Arran,  Earl  of  (1694).     See  Hamilton, 

4th  Duke  of. 
Arran  (brother  of  Ormonde),  iv.  339. 
Arrington,  Capt.,  ii.  264,  265,  266. 
Art- 
Celtic,  i.  75,  77. 

Early,  i.  69. 

Lack  of,  iv.  415. 

Monastic,  i.  75-76. 

Twelfth  century,  in,  i.  109. 
Arthur,  King,  i.  29. 
Arthur's  Oon,  i.  16,  29. 
Articles,  Lords  of  the.     See  Lords. 
Arundel,  Earl  of  (Richard  Fitzalan),  i. 

273- 
Arundel,  ist  Lord,  ii.  512. 

Arundel,  2nd  Lord,  iii.  52. 

Ashburnham,  iii.  167,  174. 

Ashby,  ii.  342 ;  cited,  344,  346. 

Assynt,  Macleod  of,  iii.  182,  216,  218. 

Aston,  Roger,  ii.  464;  cited,  356-357 
and  note. 

Athol,  Earl  of  (1416),  i.  292. 

Athol,  House  of,  i.  53-54. 

Athol,  Madoch  of,  i.  loi. 

Atholl,  Countess  of  (1335),  i.  253. 

Atholl,  Countess  of  (1593),  ii.  371. 

Atholl,  Earl  of  (1306),  i.  205,  206. 

Atholl,  Earl  of  (David  de  Strathbogie), 
disinherited  by  Bruce,  i.  225,  228- 
229  ;  at  Dupplin,  245  ;  turns  coat, 
249,  250 ;  on  Scottish  side,  250, 
252,  270;  treaty  with  Edward  HI., 
252  ;  death  of,  ib. 

Atholl,    Earl    of  (John    Campbell),    i. 

235.  249. 
Atholl,  Earl  of  (1 335),  i.  503. 
Atholl,   Earl    of  (Walter)  (1427-1437), 

i-  311-313.  315.  317- 


Atholl,  Earl  of  (1480- 1488),  i.  346, 
349.  350 ;  Donald  Dubh  kidnapped 

'ly.   343- 

Atholl,  Earl  of  (1566),  after  Riccio's 
murder,  ii.  162,  163  ;  joined  by  Leth- 
ington,  187;  joins  the  Hamiltons, 
195  ;  threatened  with  excommunica- 
tion, 255,  260  ;  death  of,  263  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  51,  78,  138,  140, 
142,  154,  165,  170,  182,  183,  192, 
221,  249,  258,   261. 

Atholl,  Earl  of  (1593- 1595),  intrigues 
with  Bothwell,  ii.  371-373.  379.  3^°  ; 
denounced  rebel,  385  ;  holds  James's 
commission,  389 ;  warded,  394  ; 
death  of,  396  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
263,  356. 

Atholl,  Earl  of  (1598),  ii.  449. 

Atholl,  1st  Earl  of  (Murray),  iii.  74, 
75,  78,  86,  87,  266,  271. 

Atholl,  Marquess  of,  joins  Hamilton's 
party,  iii.  334  ;  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Argyll,  399-402  ;  severe  measures  im- 
posed on,  407;  vacillations  of,  417, 
419,  420,  422  ;  estimate  of,  iv.  14  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  iii.  266,  271, 
327,  333;  iv.    I,    14,  28,   73. 

Atholl,  1st  Duke  of,  joins  Cavalier 
party,  iv.  91,  93  ;  relations  with 
Lovat,  93-94,  138  ;  betrayed  by  him, 
95 ;  informs  against  Queensberry, 
96  ;  protests  against  the  Union,  122  ; 
money  paid  to,  at  the  Union,  134; 
James  VHL's  letter  to,  137;  back- 
ward towards  James,  143,  144,  14S  ; 
signs  petition  to  Louis  XIV,,  147 ; 
pays  court  to  George,  173  ;  supports 
Hanoverian  cause,  181  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,    83,    87,    92,     126,    132, 

133- 

Atholl,  2nd  Duke  of,  iv.  419,  461, 
464. 

Atkin,  Margaret,  ii.  433. 

Atrocities,  alleged  —  .Scottish,  i.  112, 
122,  128-129,  184,  191;  English, 
401. 

Attacotti,  i.  16. 

Atterbury,  Bp.,  Mar's  letter  to  (1716), 
iv.  234;  conspiracy  of,  249-251; 
Mar's  alleged  betrayal  of,  337,  339- 
342  note,  364  ;  ill-health,  querulous- 
ness,  and  death,  422-424  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  236,  2S7,  333,  338,  345, 

346,  351- 
Auchenbreck,  Campbell  of,  iv.  84. 
Auchenbreck,  Sir  Duncan  Campbell  of, 

iii.  132,  133. 
Auchendrane,   Mures  of,   ii.    467,   525, 

S42-545- 
Auchinleck,  Lord,  iii.  366. 
Auchinleck,  Sir  James,  i.  327. 


542 


INDEX. 


Auchinleck   Chronicle,    i.   354 ;    cited, 

322,  326,  330,  356. 
Auchterhouse,  Laird  of,  iv.  143,  146. 
Authorities,  various,  i.  296. 
Ayala,    Don    Pedro   de,   i.    368,    370 ; 

cited,  382-384. 
Aymer  de  Valence.     See  Pembroke. 
Ayr,  i.  144,  152. 
Ayton,  Sir  Robert,  ii.  562. 

Babington  plot,  ii.  319-323. 

Bacon,  ii.  499,  500,  512. 

Badenoch,  John  Comyn,  Lord  of.  See 
Comyn. 

Badenoch,  Wolf  of  (Alexander,  son  of 
Robert  IL),  i.  266,  275,  284. 

Bailey,  Charles,  ii.  239. 

Baillie,  Father,  cited,  iii.  25. 

Baillie,  General,  differences  of,  with 
Argyll,  iii.  130,  151  note,  153  ; 
out -manoeuvred  by  Montrose,  145  ; 
thwarted  by  committee  of  estates, 
147 ;  at  Alford  fight,  149 ;  ham- 
pered by  Argyll  at  Kilsyth,  153-155  ; 
capacity  of,  140 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 112,  129,  132,  136-138,  150, 
192. 

Baillie,  Principal  of  Glasgow  University, 
on  the  Liturgy,  iii.  25,  26 ;  with 
Leslie,  57  ;  delegate  to  Westminster 
Assembly  of  Divines,  105,  no,  115  ; 
Sharpe's  correspondence  with,  284 ; 
cited,  38,  39,  41,  43-44.  57  ^'ote,  58, 
61  note,  62,  65,  80-82,  84,  85,  89, 
102,  105,  106,  108,  no.  III,  127, 
130,  133  note,  144,  156,  170,  177, 
188,  189,  252,  265,  267,  271,  274- 
278,  285,  287,  iv.  56 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  iii.   135,   185. 

Baillie  of  Jerviswood.     6"^^  Jerviswood. 

Bain  cited,  i.  239,  270,  356;  ii.  71, 
150,  207  note,  566. 

Baker,  Geoffrey  le,  i.  239;  cited,  240. 

Balcanquhal,  Dean  of  Durham,  iii.  53, 
68. 

Balcanquhal,  Walter  (preacher),  on 
Montrose's  execution,  ii.  272  ;  takes 
refuge  in  England,  297,  299-300; 
altercation  with  James,  317  ;  pro- 
vocative sermon  by,  417-419;  again 
flies  to  England,  422. 

Balcarres,  1st  I-^arl  of,  at  Alford  fight, 
iii.  149  ;  yields  to  the  English,  261  ; 
tampers  with  letters,  266 ;  feud  with 
Glencairn,  268  ;  death  of,  270  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,   153,   173,  187,  188, 

253- 
Balcarres,     3rd     ICarl     of,     faithful     to 
James    VIL,    iii.    413,    414,    422; 
deserts    Cavalier    party,    iv.    90 ;    in 
the   '15,   211;    cited,   iii.    8,    20,   30, 


417,419,  420;  otherwise  mentioned, 
iv.  28,  30. 

Balcomie,  Learmonth  of,  i.  465,  469, 
470,  474,  479,  484. 

Balcomie,  Sir  James  Learmonth  of, 
iii.   15. 

Balcomy,  Leirmont  of,  ii.  527. 

Balfour,  Beaton  of,  iv,  122. 

Balfour,  Henry,  i.  467. 

Balfour,  Sir  James,  sent  to  the  galleys,  ii. 
8  ;  influence  of,  149,  151,  154  ;  super- 
seded by  Lesley,  165  ;  implicated  in 
Darnley's  murder,  171,  175-176,  195, 
248  ;  on  Ainslie's  band,  183  ;  deserts 
Mary,  189  ;  Casket  Letters,  191,  563- 
564  ;  impeached  by  Crawford,  221  ; 
under  sureties,  223 ;  betrays  Edin- 
burgh Castle,  248;  used  to  "con- 
trary "  the  ministers,  258  ;  intrigues 
for  Mary,  259  ;  banished  by  Morton, 
264;  lands  in  Scotland,  269  ;  refused 
reception  by  King  James,  279  ;  career 
of,  248 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  162, 
220,  284. 

Balfour,  Sir  James  (Lyon  King),  cited, 
iii.  6,  9,  II,  15,  19,  11,  71,93.  188, 
220  note,  225,  232,  233,  235  note, 
254,  256,  257  note,  278. 

Balfour,  Sir  Michael,  ii.  4. 

Balfour  of  Burleigh,  Lord,  ii.  503. 

Balfour  of  Kinloch.     See  Burley. 

Balhaldy,  John  Macgregor  of,  cited, 
iv.  15,  16,  25. 

Balhaldy,  Alexander  Macgregor  of,  iv. 

437- 

Balhaldy,  Drummond  of,  iv.  8. 

Balhaldy,  Wm.  Drummond  of  (Mac- 
gregor), iv.  436,  444,  446-451- 

Ballantyne,  Sir  Wm.,  iii.  313,  315. 

Ballechin,  Stewart  of,  iii.  400,  401  ; 
iv.  7,  10,   14,   15. 

Balliol,  Bernard  de,  i.  104,  105,  112. 

Balliol,  John.     See  John  Balliol,  King. 

Balliol  College,  i.  173. 

Balliol,  Edward.  See  Edward  Balliol, 
King. 

Balloch,  Donald,  i.  305,  309,  331,  336, 

337- 

Balmerino,  Lord  (James  Elphinstone 
of  Innernaughty),  on  finance  board, 
ii.  398,  403  ;  intrigues  with  Rome, 
439-440;  feigns  I'resbyterianism, 
495  ;  fall  of,  501-504  ;  debt  to  Log.an 
of  Restalrig,  503,  572 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  480,  531. 

Balmerino,  2nd  Lord,  imprisoned,  iii. 
21;  at  Invcrlochy,  136;  death  of, 
202  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  iv.  27,  72, 
74,  87,  164-166,  172,  177,  187,  188, 
198,  200. 

Balmerino,  Lord  (1661),  iii.  294. 


INDEX. 


543 


Balmerino,  Lord  (1706),  iv.  122,  154. 
Bahiicrino,  Lord  (1720),  iv.  328. 
Balmerino,  Lord  (Arthur  Elphinstone) 

(1745),  iv.  472,  501,  521. 
Balnevis  (Balnaves).     See  Hallahill. 
Balvany,  i.  331. 
BamfieKl,  Col.,  iii.  270. 
Bancroft,  Dr,  Abp.  of  Canterbury,   ii. 

349.  353.  431.490,  549- 

"  Hands,"  1.  303,  321-322. 

Bangour  of  Hamilton,  iv.  414. 

Bannatyne  (accomplice  of  Auchen- 
drane),  ii.   544-545- 

Bannatyne  (Secretary  of  Knox),  on 
Lennox,  ii.  238  ;  on  Knox,  247. 

Bannatyne,  Bp.  of  Dunblane,  ii.  510. 

Bannockburn,  i.  217-224,  239,  240. 

Barbe,  Louis,  cited,  ii.  467  note,  571  ; 
iii.  347  tw/e. 

Barber,  Sergeant,  iv.  54-55. 

Barbour,  value  of,  as  an  authority,  i. 
213  ;  commissioner  for  David's  ran- 
som, 260;  cited,  202,  206,  207,  210, 
212-213,  222,  226,  231,  240,  268,  296. 

Barclay,  iii.  72,  106. 

Barclay  (Berkley),  iv.  11. 

Barclay,  Sir  David,  i.  255. 

Bargany,  Kennedy  of,  ii.  542-543. 

Barillon  cited,  iii.  405. 

Barisdale,  Coll  Macdonnell  of,  i.  134  ; 
iv.  375.  471,  506,  519. 

Barlowe,  Rev.  Dr,  i.  436-438. 

Baron's  Court,  i.  151. 

Barra,  Macneil  of,  ii.  532-533. 

Barron,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  524. 

Barron,  Mrs,  ii.  29. 

Barrow-dwellers,  i.  69,  86. 

Barrymore,  Earl  of,  iv.  437,  441. 

Barscobe,  Maclellan  of  (Jacobite),  iv.  204. 

Barscobe,  M'Lennan  of,  at  Both  well 
Bridge,  iii.  351,  353;  capture  and 
death  of,  371-372;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 307-308,  322,  348,  370. 

Barton,  Captain  Robert,  i.  369,  374. 

Bass,  Lauder  of  the,  i.  301. 

Bass  Rock  held  by  Cavaliers,  iv.  46-47. 

Bates,  C.  J.,  cited,  i.  388,  390. 

Batten,  Vice- Admiral,  iii.  ioi5. 

Battle,  wager  of,  i.  149-150,  161,  317, 
506. 

Battledykes,  i.  10,  19. 

Battles  and  fights — 

Aberdeen,  iii.  126-128  and  note. 
Airs  Moss,  iii.  358. 
Alford,  iii.  147-149. 
Ancrum  Moor  (1545),  i.  480-481. 
Auldearn,  iii.  141 -144. 
Bannockburn,  i.  217-224,  239,  240. 
Bauge,  i.  294. 
Bloody  Bay,  i.  343,  507. 
Both  well  Bridge,  iii.  351-353. 
VOL.   IV. 


Byland,  i.  231. 

Carbisdale,  iii.  214,  216,  230. 

Carham  on  Tweed,  i.  52. 

Chevy  Chase,  i.  281. 

Chirchind,  i.  31. 

"Cleanse    the    Causeway,"    i.    399, 

429,  504- 
Clifton,  iv.  485-486. 
Clitheroe,  i.  104,  106. 
Coltbridge,  canter  of,  iv.  466. 
Corbridge,  i.  44. 
Corrichie,  ii.  117,  119. 
Craignaught  Hill,  i.  321. 
Cree,  on  the  (1308),  i.  213. 
Cromdale  Haughs,  iv.  30,  36,  46. 
Cruachan  (1309),  i.  214. 
Culloden,  iv.   508-516,  523-525,  527- 

535- 
Dawstane  (Degsastane),  i.  32,  39. 
Drumclog,  iii.  346-347- 
Dunbar,  iii.  237-242. 
Dunkeld,  iv.  23-24. 
Dupplin  (1332),  i.  244-245,  269,  502. 
Durham  (1006),  i.  52. 
Durham  (Neville's  Cross)  (1346),  i. 

257-258. 
Falkirk,   i.    1S6-187,    198 ;    iv.  492- 

495- 
Flodden,  i.    378-381,  386,  388-390; 

authorities  as  to,  390-391. 
Glen  Trool,  i.  211. 
Glenrinnes,  ii.  391-393. 
Glenshiel,  iv.   272-273. 
Hadden  Rig,  i.  451-452. 
Haethfield  (Hatfield),  i.  32,  39. 
Halidon  Hill,  i.  248-249,  270,  503. 
Ilarlaw,  i.  291-292. 
Herrings,  of  the  (Rouvray),  i.   307- 

308. 
Homildon  Hill,  i.  287. 
Inch  of  Perth  (Thirty  Highlanders), 

i.  284-285. 
Inverkeithing,  iii.  253-254. 
Inverlochy,  i.  305. 
Inverurie  (1308),  i.  213. 
Inverurie  (1745),  i^-  490- 
Killiecrankie,  iv.  16-21. 
Kilsyth,  iii.  153-156. 
Lagabraad  and  Park,  i.  343. 
Langside,  ii.  196-197,  247. 
Lochgarry,  iii.  273. 
Loudoun  Hill  (1307),  i.  211. 
Lumphanan,  i.  55. 
Marston  Moor,  iii.  116. 
Methven,  i.  206. 
Mons  Graupius,  i.  7-8,  18. 
Naseby,  iii.  144. 
Nectan's  Mere,  i.  36. 
Nesbit  Moor,  i.  2S7. 
Neville's  Cross  (1346),  i.  257-258. 
North  Esk,  i.  103. 

2    M 


544 


INDEX. 


Otterburn  (1388),  i.  282-283,  297. 

Passaro,  Cape,  iv.  262. 

Philiphaugh,  iii.  157-159. 

Pinkie  Cleugh,  ii.  9-1 1. 

Preston  (1715),  iv.  208-209,  238. 

Prestonpans,  iv.  468-470. 

Roslin,  i.  192,  199. 

Rullion  Green,  iii.  309. 

Sark  (1449),  i-  326,  354-355- 

Sauchie  Burn,  i.  350. 

SherifFmuir,  iv.  190,  216-218,  367. 

Shrewsbury,  i.  288. 

Sohvay    Moss,    i.    453  -  455,     457  ; 

Scottish  prisoners  from,  i.  461-462. 
Spean     Bridge    and     Loch     Lochy, 

between,  iv.  461. 
Spey   or    Moray    Firth   (Stockford), 

1.  100. 
Standard,  i.  104-107. 
Stirling  Bridge,  i.  182-184,  198. 
Strath  Naver,  i.  305. 
Strathbogie,  iv.  504. 
Tippermuir,  iii.  122-123. 
Turriff,  Trot  of,  iii.  58. 
Verneuil  (1424),  i.  295. 
Worcester,  iii.  258. 
Beacon  fires,  i.  332. 
Beaton,  James,  Abp.  of  Glasgow  (later 
of  St  Andrews),  in  the  Douglas  feud, 
i.    399 ;    intrigues   against,   404-406, 
439;  imprisoned,  406;  released,  407; 
joined   by  James,   i.    412  ;    case   of 
Patrick   Hamilton,   430-431  ;    death 
of,  445  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  384, 

392,  393.  410.  420. 

Beaton,  Abp.  of  Glasgow  (nephew  of 
the  Cardinal),  goes  to  France,  ii.  55  ; 
Morton's  letter  to  (1577),  259;  in- 
trigue for  conveying  James  to  France, 
262,  267  ;  forged  letters  attributed 
to,  270 ;  kept  in  the  dark  by  Marj', 
281  ;  James's  distrust  of,  306 ;  con- 
tinued as  ambassador  to  F" ranee  after 
Mary's  death,  334  ;  restored  to  his 
temporalities,  437  ;  cited,  79,  188, 
189;  otherwise  mentioned,  71,  173, 
203. 

Beaton,  Cardinal  David,  persecutions 
under,  i.  431,  446,  453,  459,  476; 
negotiates  James's  marriaije  with  Mary 
of  Guise,  444,  446 ;  story  of  list  of 
heretics  supplied  by,  453,  464-466  ; 
Knox's  insinuations  as  to,  455-456, 
472  ;  story  of  the  forged  will,  460, 
464-467  ;  Regent,  460  ;  relations  with 
Douglas  and  Arran,  463  ;  arrested, 
ib.  ;  imprisoned,  464  ;  transferred 
to  Blackness,  466  ;  free,  ib.  ; 
Henry  VIII. 's  attempt  to  bribe,  468  ; 
on  the  marriage  treaty,  470 ;  pro- 
claimed   a    traitor,    471  ;    joined    by 


Arran,  ib.  ;  action  against  anti- 
nationalists,  472  ;  plot  against  (April 
1544),  476-477  ;  retires  to  Linlith- 
gow, 477  ;  popular  distrust  of,  478  ; 
asks  excommunications  against  hos- 
tile prelates,  492  ;  wins  over  hostile 
lords,  479  ;  plot  for  murder  of,  481  ; 
Celts  in  opposition  to,  483  ;  holds 
clerical  convocation  in  Edinburgh, 
487,  489 ;  martyrdom  of  Wishart, 
488  ;  marriage  of  his  daughter,  489  ; 
murder  of,  489-490 ;  career  of,  445- 
446 ;  policy  of,  459  ;  power  and 
ability  of,  ib,^  461  ;  private  life  of, 
455,  459  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  407, 
425,  442,  451. 

Beaton,  Mary,  iv.  196. 

Beaufort,  Cardinal,  i.  308,  317. 

Beaufort,  Jane  (wife  of  James  I.),  i. 
295.  315.  320,  322,  325. 

Beaumont,  Henry  de.     See  Buchan. 

Becket,  Thomas  a,  i.  112,  129. 

Bade  cited,  i.  70,  71,  72. 

Bedesmen,  i.  301. 

Bedford,  ist  Earl  of,  ii.  135,  139,  I40, 
149,  151,  173;  privy  to  Riccio  plot, 
161. 

Bedford,  4th  Duke  of,  iv.  438. 

Beer  and  ale — 
Price  of,  ii.  555. 
Royal  revenue  from  excise  of,  iii.  295. 

Beeston,  Governor  of  Jamaica,  iv.  69. 

"Beggars'  Warning"  (1559),  ii.  46. 

Belfinlay,  Macdonald  of,  iv.  530. 

Belhaven,  Lord,  iv.  63,  64,  97,  103, 
121-122. 

Bellarmine,  Cardinal,  ii.  501-502. 

Bellenden  (1541),  i.  451. 

Bellenden  (1667),  iii.  313. 

Bellenden,  Justice-Clerk,  ii.  157,  219, 

313- 
Bellenden,  Patrick,  ii.  160. 
Beltrees,  Semphill  of,  ii.  439. 
Benedict  XIII.,  Pope  (Peter  de  Luna), 

i.  296,  309. 
Benemund  (Bagimond)  de  'Vecci,  i.  154. 
Beowulf  cW-^Ci,  i.  66-67. 
Berchan,  St,  cited,  i.  47,  57. 
Bernicia,  i.  28,  29. 
Berwick,  Duke  of,  advice  of,  to  James 

VIII.,  iv.  173-176,  186;  breach  with 

James,  175,  186,   187,  223  ;  natur.1l- 

isalion  as  PVench  subject,  175,  202- 

203  ;  error  in  Memoirs  of,  177,  178  ; 

informed  of  James's  plans,  178,  179; 

informs  ag.ninst  Jacoliitcs,  266,  279, 

280  ;  cited,  168,  171,  189. 
Berwick-on-Twced — 

Bruce's  attempt  on,  i.  215  ;  his  ac- 
quisition of  (1318),  228,  240;  his 
resistance  to  siege  of  castle,  229. 


INDEX. 


545 


Edward  III.'s  siege  of  {I333-?I338) 

i.  247-249,  270,  503. 
English  recovery  of,  i.  345. 
French  and  Scottish  taking  of  (1356), 

i.  259. 
James   III.'s   negotiations  as   to,    i. 

348-349- 
Massacre  at  (1296),  i.  177. 
Prosperity  of  (13th  century),  i.  144. 
Scottish  captures  of  (1378,  1384),  i. 
276;  (1461),  33'- 
Beza,  ii.  79,  256,  445. 
Bible- 
Circulation   of,  permitted  (1543))   '• 

465. 
Parody  of,  cited,  i.  203. 
Studies  in,  results  of,  i.  428-429. 
Binning,  ii.  272,  321. 
Binning  (Brownen,  Bruning),  John,  iii. 

393-394- 
Binns,  Tom  Dalziel  of,  iii.  230,  309, 

.312,  313.  348,  354..  358. 
Birgham,  assembly  at,  i.  116,  147. 
Birgham,  treaty  of  (1290),  i.   164-165, 

169. 
Birrel  cited,  ii.  551. 
Birrens-wark,  i.  20. 
Biscop,  Benedict,  i.  68. 
Bishops  under  St  Patricius,  i.  27,  38. 

See  also  under  Church  and  Kirk. 
Bisset,  Habakkuk,  ii.  338-339. 
Bissett,  Walter,  i.  130,  193. 
Black,  David  (preacher),  ii.  397,  412- 

416,  430.  514.  548-549- 
Black,  Prof.  Wm.,  iv.  396. 
Blackadder,  Hume  of,  iv.  103. 
Blackader,  Bp.  of  Glasgow,  i.  348,  349, 

359,  368,  373,  387- 
Blackader,    Dr,   stirs  up  opposition  to 
compromise,  iii.  322,  323  ;  imprison- 
ment and  death  of,  356;  cited,  308, 
353  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  399 ;  iv. 

46. 

Blackburn,  Bp.,  ii.  465. 

Blackett,  Sir  VVm.,  iv.  199. 

Blackball,  Stewart  of,  iii.  88,  89,  91,  95. 

Blackwell  (preacher),  iv.  156,  159,  314. 

Blair,  Drummond  of,  ii.  308. 

Blair,  John,  i.  180. 

Blair  of  Glasclune  cited,  iv.  471. 

Blair,  Rev.  Robert,  appointed  to  St 
Andrews  University,  iii.  44  ;  cited, 
41  note,  197,  208;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 84,   177,    1S3,  271,  272. 

Bland,  Gen.,  iv.  509. 

Bland,  Major,  iv.  514. 

Blasphemy,  Act  against  (1695),  iv.  56  ; 
hanging  for,  ili. 

Blind  Harry  cited,  i.  180,  184,  189, 
194. 

Blue  bonnets,  iii.  55. 


Blythe  (preacher),  ii.  474. 

Bocher,  Joan,  ii.  15. 

Boece,  Hector,  unreliability  of,  i.  352  ; 
date  of,  354 ;  at  Aberdeen,  424 ; 
cited,   16,  26,  52,  320,   321,  327. 

Boedhe,  i.  53. 

Bohun,  Sir  Henry,  i.  220. 

Boisdale,  Macdonald  of,  iv.  458. 

Bolingbroke,  Viscount  (St  John),  views 
of,  on  James  VIII. 's  religion,  iv.  165, 
168,  171  ;  relations  with  Harley,  165, 
167,  169;  in  favour  at  Court,  170; 
timid  inaction  of,  171  ;  appointed 
Minister  to  James,  175  ;  rising  of 
1715,  176-182,  185-186;  assurances 
to  James,  222;  discharged  by  him, 
233  ;  his  defence,  234-236  ;  turns  coat, 
236  ;  estimate  of,  165,  234  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  152,  153,  174,  225,  227. 

Bombards,  i.  315,  331-333- 

Bomby,  MacLelian  of,  i.  328,  329. 

Bondage,  i.  79,  83-84,  133,  134,  137- 
138,   140,  143;  decay  of,   141. 

Bonhill,  Sir  John  of,  i.  186. 

Bonhill,  Smollett  of,  ii.  528  ;  iv.  1 10,  256. 

Bonot,  ii.  24. 

Book  of  Armagh  cited,  i.  22. 

Books  and  booksellers,  ii.  558. 

Border — 

Beacon  fires,  i.  332. 

Customs,  ii.  522-523. 

Fortresses,    destruction    of,    ordered 

(1604),  ii.   500. 
Laws,  ii.  500. 

Border  raids — 

Commission  (1557),  ii.  35. 

Dacre  and  Home,   under  (1514),  i. 

392. 

Eure,    Bowes,   and    Hertford,  under 
(I544-I545),i.  479-480,  483. 

Frequency  of,  ii.  251. 

Iladden  Rig,  i.  451-452. 

Ill  Raid,  the  (1513),  i-  377- 

Nature  of,  i.  280-2S1. 

Perkin's  view  of,  i.  369. 

"Plain  necessity,  by,"  ii.  338. 

Recovery  of  Scottish  territory  by,  i. 
276. 

Reidswire,  the,  ii.  257-258. 

Sark  Water  (1449),  i.  326. 

Solway  Moss,  i.  453-455,  457,  461. 

Surrey's  ravages  (1523),  i.  401. 
Borderers — 

Apathy  of,  in  the  '45,  iv.  475. 

English   and    Scottish   compared,    i. 
402. 

Jeddart  justice  among,  ii.  523. 

Mar's  chastisement  of,  ii.  1 15- 1 16. 

Truce  opjiosed  by  (1526),  i.  408. 
Borghese,  ii.  440. 
Borland  (preacher),  iv.  70-71. 


546 


INDEX. 


Borlum,  Mackintosh  of,  iv.  1 97- 1 98, 
213  ;  cited,  415. 

Boroughs.     See  Burghs. 

Borthwick  (priest),  i.  351. 

Borthwick,  Lady,  i.  479. 

Borthwick,  Sir  John,  i.  448-449,  479  ; 
ii.  78. 

Boston  (preacher,  of  Ettrick),  iv.  284- 
287,  290,  293,  297,  308. 

Boston,  Mr  (junior),  iv.  321-322. 

Bothwell,  Earl  of  (John  Ramsay),  i. 
348-350,  361,  362,  364-365,  367. 

Bothwell,  Earl  of  (Hepburn,  Lord 
Hailes),  alleged  marriage  of,  with 
Mary  of  Gueldres,  i.  338  ;  seizure  of 
James  IIL,  339;  rebellion,  349-35°  5 
made  Earl,  361  ;  resigns  Lordship, 
364 ;  negotiates  treaty  with  France, 

387. 

Bothwell,  Earl  of,  at  Flodden,  i.  379  ; 
offers  to  crown  Henry  VHL,  418, 
436  ;  conspiiacy  for  Henry  kept  from, 
462 ;  Lady  Borthwick's  prisoner, 
479  ;  Wishart  arrested  by,  487,  492  ; 
treason  of,  ii.  8 ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
i.  415,  464,  465. 

Bothwell,  Earl  of  (James),  robs  Ormis- 
toun,  ii.  61,  108,  III  ;  returns  to 
Scotland,  95  ;  alliance  with  Arran, 
III  ;  alleged  plot  to  seize  the  Queen, 
III -113;  imprisoned,  129;  asks 
leave  to  return,  137;  returns,  139; 
summoned  for  trial  and  escapes,  140, 
147 ;  Mary's  alleged  intrigue  with, 
141,  167,  170,  173;  recalled  by 
Mary,  148  ;  made  lieutenant  of  the 
Marches,  151  ;  marriage  with  Lady 
Jane  Huntly,  159,  160;  after  Ric- 
cio's  murder,  162-164;  feud  with 
Moray  reconciled,  164;  attempts  to 
ruin  Moray,  165  ;  wounded,  169-170  ; 
the  band  for  Damley's  murder,  i. 
392,  ii.  171,  182  ;  murder  of  Darnley, 
175-177;  acquitted  of  the  murder, 
181  ;  Ainslie's  band,  182-184;  abduc- 
tion of  Mary,  184-185;  divorced 
from  Lady  Jane  Huntly,  186  ;  mar- 
riage with  Mary,  ih.  ;  retires  to 
Orkney,  190  ;  in  Denmark,  194, 
216;  papers  of,  stored  in  Edin- 
burgh Castle,  563  ;  Mary  continues 
correspondence  with,  234 ;  dying, 
258  ;  dead,  261  ;  characteristics  of, 
168-169  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  361  ; 
ii.  40,   71,   108,   109,   173,    191,   218. 

Bothwell  (Francis  .Stewart),  in  the  Raid 
of  Kuthvcn,  ii.  286;  quarrels  with 
Arran,  295  ;  refused  a  passport  by 
Elizabeth,  325  ;  insulted  by  Sir  Wm. 
Stewart,  341  ;  at  feud  with  Maitland, 
344-345  ;    plot  to  seize  James,  345  ; 


warded,  346,  347-348;  during  James's 
absence  in  Denmark,  348 ;  imprisoned 
on  witchcraft  charge  and  escapes, 
353 ;  attacks  Holyrood,  355  ;  state- 
ment in  apology,  358-359  ;  forfeited, 
361,  367;  harasses  James,  361-362; 
patronised  by  England,  361,  362, 
364,  365  ;  spared  by  the  Kirk,  362- 
364,  366 ;  a  "  sanctified  plague, " 
363.  367-368,  379.  394;  accounted 
a  Catholic,  366  ;  seizes  James,  368, 
371-374;    acquitted    of   witchcraft, 

374  ;   modus  vivendi  arranged  with, 

375  ;  thrown  over  by  Elizabeth,  376  ; 
fresh  intrigue  with  AthoU,  379-380 ; 
Logan's  support  of,  572 ;  raid  of 
Leith,  384-385 ;  in  disfavour,  388, 
389  ;  joins  Catholic  nobles,  390-391  ; 
excommunicated,  394  ;  retires  to 
France,  ib.  ;  estimate  of,  ib.  ; 
James's  estimate  of,  344  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  323,  343,  435,  444. 

Bothwell,  Francis  (son  of  harasser  of 
James),  iii.  21. 

Bothwellhaugh,  Hamilton  of,  ii.  225- 
226. 

Bourignon,  Antoinette,  iv.  282. 

Bower  (continuator  of  Fordun),  author- 
ity of,  i.  269  ;  estimate  of,  296  ; 
period  of,  297  ;  pre-occupations  of, 
300  ;  cited,  262,  269,  285,  290,  294, 
295,   298,  299,  302,  309,  310,   321, 

354- 

Bower,  Dr,  iv.  409. 

Bower,  James,  ii.  556,  571-573- 

Bower,  Rev.  John,  iv.  312-313. 

Bowes,  Robert,  Elizabeth's  Minister  in 
Scotland,  ii.  260,  262,  264,  266 ; 
recalled,  268  ;  efforts  for  Morton, 
270  ;  tries  to  obtain  Casket  Letters, 
288,  569  ;  fails,  297  ;  at  Holyrood, 
362  ;  death  of,  431  ;  cited,  287,  289, 
404,  410,  418;  otherwise  mentioned, 
285287,  291,  295,  296,  309,  366, 
375.  403,  409.  412,  429. 

Bowes,  Sir  Robert  (1541),  i.  451,  479. 

Bowes,  Sir  Wm.,  ii.  431,  434,  439. 

Bowlon,  Hepburn  of,  ii.  175,  177,  208, 
209,  222,  226,  321. 

Boyd  (1 307),  i.  209. 

Boyd,  iv.  34-35. 

Boyd,  Abp.  of  Glasgow,  ii.  257. 

Boyd,  Lord  (1461),  i.  335-  339-340- 

Boyd,  Lord  (1566- 1 582),  ii.  150,  159, 
170,  218,  228,  237,  285. 

]{oyd,  Lord  (1640),  iii.  27,  78,  85. 

Boyd,  Sir  Alexander,  i.   329,   339-34'. 

357- 
Boyd,  Sir  Thomas  (Earl  of  Arran),  1. 

339-340. 
Boyd,  Zachary  (preacher),  iii.  251. 


INDEX. 


547 


Boyle,  Robert,  iv.  308. 

Boyne,  Ogilvy  of,  iv.  122,  146,  196. 

Brant6me,  ii.  loi. 

Brawling  abroad,  ii.  552. 

Brea,  Malcolm  Macleod  of,  cited,  iv, 
529. 

Breadalbane,  ist  Earl  of  (Campbell  of 
Glenorchy,  Earl  of  Caithness),  action 
of,  regarding  Highlanders'  submis- 
sion and  Glencoe  massacre,  iv.  37- 
41,  43  ;  charge  against,  53  ;  procures 
Highland  submissions  to  George, 
173  ;  joins  Mar,  212  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  iii.  333,  41?  ;  iv.  28,  30, 
146,  197. 

Brechin,  Sir  David  de,  i.  230. 

Breck,  Allan,  iv.  378. 

Breda,  Treaty  of,  iii.  213. 

Brett,  Col.,  iv.  437. 

Bretwalda,  i.  32. 

Brewer,  Dr,  cited,  i.  375-376,  418. 

Bridlington  author  cited,  i.  502-504. 

Brigantes,  i.  5,  9. 

Brisbane,  Dr,  iv.  418. 

Brisbane  of  Bishopston,  iv.  216. 

Brochs,  i.  64. 

Brodie,  Rev.  James,  iv.  313. 

Brodie  of  Brodie,  iii.  208,  228,  268, 
301  ;  diary  of,  cited,  278-281. 

Broghill,  Lord,  iii.  276-277. 

Broughton,  Mrs  Murray  of,  iv.  467, 
476,  521, 

Broughton,  John  Murray  of,  family  and 
early  career  of,  iv.  434-435  ;  relations 
with  Balhaldy  and  Lovat,  439-440, 
450,  451  ;  intrigues  with  Camer- 
onians,  441  ;  anxieties  and  perplexi- 
ties, 442-444 ;  interview  with  Prince 
Charles,  450  ;  memorial  to  him,  452  ; 
responsibility  of,  453  ;  Charles's  sec- 
retary, 460 ;  Maxwell's  animosity 
against,  460,  464  ;  at  Carlisle,  475- 
476  ;  invalided,  479,  503 ;  shame  of, 

521. 

Brown,  Craig,  iii.  158  note,  163  note. 

Brown,  Hume,  cited,  i.  98,  126,  165, 
204,  297,  299,  316,  318,  348,  356, 
357,  388,  389,  420,  457  ;  ii.  5,  18, 
26,  36,  49,  62,  72,  86,  87,  92,  128, 
131,  276,  370,  388  note,  521  ;  iii.  9, 
162,  203,  313  note. 

Brown,  Father  James,  cited,  ii.  508. 

Brown,  John,  of  Priesthill,  iii.  371,  385- 
386,  392-394. 

Brown,  Rev.  Patrick,  i.  425. 

Browne,  iii.  311,  317. 

Brownen  (Bruning,  Binning),  John.  iii. 

393-394- 

Bruce  (editor  of  James  VI.'s  correspond- 
ence) cited,  ii.  472-473. 

Bruce,  Alexander,  i.  209-210. 


Bruce,  Bp.  of  Glasgow,  i.  354. 

Bruce,  .Sir  Alexander,  iv.  82. 

Bruce,  Christian  (sister  of  the  King), 
i.  249. 

Bruce,  Edward,  on  the  Cree,  i.  213- 
214;  invests  Stirling,  216;  at  Ban- 
nockburn,  219,  222-223;  raids  in 
north  of  England,  225 ;  Irish  ad- 
ventures, 226 ;  death  of,  228. 

Bruce,  Mary,  i.  208,  235,  252. 

Bruce,  Rev.  Michael,  iii.  319. 

Bruce,  Nigel,  i.  203,  206-207. 

Bruce,  Robert  (Earl  of  Annandale), 
activities  of,  on  death  of  Alexander 
III.,i.  163-167;  claims  to  the  throne, 
167,  172-174,  197;  compact  with 
Count  of  Holland,  173  ;  genealogy 
of,   174;  anti-nationalism  of,  198. 

Bruce,  Robert,  Earl  of  Carrick.  See 
Car  rick. 

Bruce,  Robert,  King.     See  Robert. 

Bruce,  Robert  (preacher),  on  the  Act 
of  Abolition,  ii.  383  ;  the  Kirk  riot 
and  appeal  to  Lord  Hamilton,  418  ; 
flies  to  England,  422 ;  intrigue  with 
Robert  Cecil,  435 ;  sues  for  recovery 
of  pension,  438  ;  summons  Gowrie 
home,  445  ;  scepticism  as  to  Cowrie's 
conspiracy,  463,  474,  476-477  ;  ban- 
ished, 464  ;  interview  with  James, 
474  ;  retires  again  to  Restalrig,  476  ; 
in  banishment,  492,  506  ;  contuma- 
cious, 515;  Charles's  repression  of, 
iii.  16;  cited,  ii.  375;  otherwise 
mentioned,  344,  348,  349,  361,  362, 
364,  430,  441. 

Bruce,  Robert  (spy),  plan  of,  for 
Spanish  aid,  ii.  334-335  ;  intercepts 
Spanish  money,  344,  408  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  263,  315,  320,  343. 

Bruce,  Thomas,  i.  203,  209-210. 

Brude,  King,  i.  30-31. 

Brunston,  Crichton  of,  treachery  of,  i. 
447,  474 ;  plot  against  Beaton,  474- 
475,  485-487  ;  wounded  before  Edin- 
burgh, 477;  treason  summons  against, 
ii.  3  ;  pardoned  by  Parliament,  25  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  i.  470,  480, 
482;  ii.  19,  32. 
Brus,  Robert  de  (Lord  of  Annandale), 

i.  104-105,  174. 
Bryan,  Sir  Francis,  ii.  9. 
Brysson,  George,  cited,  iii.  397,  404. 
Brythons,  i.  3,  28-31. 
Buccleuch,  House  of,  i.  407. 
Buccleuch,  1st  Duke  of  (James,  Duke 

of  Monmouth),  iii.  304. 
Buccleuch,  2nd  Duke  of,  iv.  522. 
Buccleuch,  2nd  Earl  of,    iii.    112-I16, 

231. 
Buccleuch,  Scott  of  (1525),  plot  of,  to 


548 


INDEX. 


seize  James  V.,  i.   407;  at  "Turn 
Again,"  410,  444  ;  arrested  by  James, 
415;  at  Ancrum  Moor,  481;  killed 
in  Edinburgh,  ii.   17. 
Buccleuch,  Scott  of  (1570),  ii.  226,  228, 

237- 
Buccleuch,   Lord  Scott  of,  plots  with 

the  Queen,  ii.  395-396 ;  rescues  Kin- 

mont    Willie,    406-408;    otherwise 

mentioned,  384,  390,  415. 
Buchan,  Countess  of,  i.  204,  208,  234, 

238. 
Buchan,  Earl  of  (Alexander  Comyn), 

i.   162. 
Buchan,  Earl  of  (John  Comyn),  i.  177, 

181-182,  213. 
Buchan,  Earl  of  (Henry  de  Beaumont), 

i.  219-220,  234,  243-245,  249,  250. 
Buchan,    Earl  of  (John),  i.   291,   293- 

295. 
Buchan,  Earl  of  (uncle  of  James  III.), 

i-  346,  349.  350,  364,  369.  387-3S8. 

Buchan,  Earl  of  (1574),  ii.  258. 

Buchan,  Earl  of  (1707),  iv.  137. 

Buchan,  Gen.,  iv.  37,  42,  145. 

Buchan,  "  herschip  "  of,  i.  213. 

Buchanan,  George,  arrest  of,  attempted, 
i.  446  ;  as  Mary's  accuser,  ii.  202  ; 
publishes  'Admonition  to  the  True 
Lords,'  227  ;  tutor  to  James  VI., 
233  ;  proposed  publication  of  '  De- 
tection '  by,  240  ;  quarrel  with  Mor- 
ton, 260  ;  influences  James  against 
the  Hamiltons,  264  ;  untrustworthy, 
i.  352;    cited,    334,  341,  351,   352, 

356-358,  3^.  389.  390,  393,  410, 
419,  420,  450,  467,  505  ;  ii.  10,  18, 
44,  50,  53,  103,  112,  120,  122,  143, 
160,  167,  169-170,  172,  173,  176- 
177,  207,  244,  295,  509;  otherwise 
mentioned,  i.  424  ;  ii.  220,  256,  425. 
Buchanan,    Thomas   (1571),    cited,    ii, 

234- 
Buchanan,  Thomas  (1596),  ii.  406. 
Buckingham,  Duchess  of,  iv.  437. 
Buckingham,     Earl     of    (Villiers),     ii. 

512  ;  iii.   3,  5,  6,  20. 
Bull,  Stephen,  i.  363. 
Bullinger,  ii.  27,  79. 
Bullock,  Rev.   Wm.,  i.  251-252,   254- 

256,  270. 
Buni,  John  (priest),  ii.  506. 
Burgh,  Lord,  ii.  365. 
Burgh,  I^ichard  de,  i.   163. 
Burgh  privilege,  i.  141. 
Burghead,  i.  9,  10. 
Burghs — 

I5ruce's  charters  to,  i.  502. 

Constituents  of,  i.  143. 

Fairs  in,  i.  145. 

Growth  of,  i.  141-142,  500-502. 


Representation  of — 
Beginnings  of,  i.  147. 
Cambuskenneth,  at  (1326),  i.  232. 
Parliamentary,  i.  306  ;  iv.  85-86. 
Status  of,  i.  147,  198. 
Wards  of,  i.  144. 

Burghley,  Lord  (William  Cecil),  atti- 
tude of,  towards  Scottish  Protestants, 
ii.  58,  60  ;  arranges  sending  of  secret 
aid,  62-63  ;  on  Lennox's  return  to 
Scotland,  134  ;  Darnley  scheme, 
135-137  ;  intercepts  "Protestation  of 
Huntly  and  .Argyll,"  170;  signa- 
tories to  Ainslie's  band  supplied  by, 
182  ;  the  Casket  Letters,  190- igi, 
564;  on  Mary's  position  (1568), 
197  ;  on  Mary's  detention,  201  ;  the 
commission  on  Mary's  case,  206,  207, 
209  ;  threats  against  Maiy,  213,  214  ; 
plotted  against,  215,  217  ;  interview 
with  Mary,  232 ;  examines  Lesley, 
239  ;  intrigue  for  Mary's  execution, 
242-243 ;  Kirkcaldy's  and  Lething- 
ton's  appeal  to,  249 ;  knowledge  of 
ISLiry's  plots,  263  ;  schemes  to  separ- 
ate James  from  Mary,  304  ;  Arran's 
submission  to,  310;  discovers 
Huntly's  plot,  343  ;  Gray  spies  for, 
347 ;  on  the  Octavians,  409 ;  cited, 
75  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  23,  25,  56, 
57,  95,  98-101,  125,  130,  139,  141, 
165,  333  f'ote,  335,  .^66,  3S9-39I- 

Burleigh,  Lord,  iii.  126,  251. 

Burleigh,  Lord  Balfour  of,  ii.  503. 

Burley,  John  Balfour  of  (Kinloch), 
Sharp  hated  by,  iii.  341-342  ;  Sharp 
murdered  by,  343 ;  at  Drumclog,  347 ; 
at  Bothwell  Bridge,  352  ;  flies  to  Hol- 
land, 354;  in  Argyll's  rising,  399; 
otherwise  mentioned,  iii.  106,  330, 390. 

Burned  Candlemas,  the,  i.  260. 

Burnet,  Alexander,  Abp.  of  Glasgow, 
intrigues  with  Sharp,  iii.  306;  keeps 
back  royal  letter  of  clemency,  313 
fiotc,  341  ;  forced  to  resign,  321  ; 
restored,  330  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
314-315,  318-320. 

Burnet,  Gilbert,  Bp.  of  Salisbury, 
scheme  of,  for  restoring  ministers 
in  couples,  iii.  324,  325  ;  remon- 
strates with  Laudcrd.ile  .ind  Sharp, 
305  ;  betrayal  of  confidences  by, 
330  ;  cited,  on  Mitchell's  trial,  330- 
332  ;  otherwise  cited,  15,  22,  42, 
53  and  note,  54,  64,  67  7iote,  72, 
73,  75  ^'olc,  76,  81,  III,  177,  183, 
238,  286,  289,  290,  300,  303,  305- 
307,  313  7iolc,  315-316,  319,  322, 
324-325,  329,  366,  368,  369,  378, 
379,  412,  414  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
303.  317,323;  'V.  27. 


INDEX. 


549 


Burnett  cited,   i.  271,   298,   316,   352, 

355.  356,  387. 
Burns,  Robert,  iv.  393,  415. 
Burns,    Rev.    Robert,    cited,    iii.    318, 

325- 
Burt,  "  Letters  from  the  North,"  cited, 

iv.  420. 

Burton,  Hill,  cited,  i.  16-17,  25,  126, 
158,  228,  238,  271,  297,  302,  317, 
3S8,  416,  418,  419,  492,  507  ;  ii.  29, 
48-49,  207,  430,  571;  iii.  27  note, 
140,  155  note,  256,  286  no/e,  333 
twte,  341,  352;  iv.  42,  52,  89,  124, 
380. 

Buston,  i.  61  ;  remains  at,  61-62. 

Bute,  1st  Earl  of,  iv.  137. 

Butelourte,  i.  210. 

Butler,  Mr,  iv.  438,  441,  442. 

Byng,  Sir  George,  iv.  149,  185,  262. 

Cadiz  expedition,  iii.  10. 

Cadogan,  Lord,  iv.  227-228,  231,  232, 

243,  249,  291,  355. 
Cadwalla,  King,  i.  32-33. 
Ccedmon  cited,  i.  67. 
Caerlaverock,   Herbert    Maxwell   of,   i. 

295-   . 
Ccesar  cited,  i.  4,  5. 
Cairns,  Friar  Andrew,  i.  419. 
Caithness,  4th    Earl   of,   ii.    138,    142, 

280. 
Caithness,    5th    Earl   of,   ii.    524,  538, 

539- 
Caithness,  6th  Earl  of.     See  Breadal- 

bane. 
Calder,   Laird  of  (1443),   i.  474.  475. 

479,  487. 
Calder,  Campbell  of  (1527),  ii.  531. 
Calder,  Campbell  of  (1571),  ii.  238. 
Calder,   Campbell   of  (1584),   ii.    355- 

356. 

Calder,  Campbell  of  (1640),  iii.  75. 

Calder,  Campbell  of  (1689),  iv.  9. 

Calderwood,  confined  to  his  parish, 
ii.  493  ;  recalcitrancy  of,  499, 
505 ;  violent  intolerance  of,  506, 
507  ;  dispute  with  James  and  exile, 
513-514;  pamphlet  against  innova- 
tions, 514,  515;  unpopular  among 
the  brethren,  iii.  85  ;  estimate  of,  ii. 
265  ;  cited,  on  Sprot's  confession  as 
to  Cowrie  Conspiracy,  570-571,  573, 
575 ;  otherwise  cited,  i.  416,  432, 
443;  >'•  172,  279,  297,  299,  301, 
307,  311,  317,  327,  329,  333,  341, 
344,  347,  357,  366,  367,  391,  392, 
393,  394,  396,  401,  406,  416,  418, 
436-437,  445,  446,  449,  460,  464, 
474,  489.  491,  492,  504,  507.  509, 
516-518,  528,  539,  549,  569. 

Caldwell,  Mrs  Mure  of,  iii.  375. 


Caledonians — 

Origin  of,  theories  as  to,  i.  3. 
Physical  characteristics  of,  i.  9. 

Caledonii,  customs  of,  i.  10. 

Calendar — beginning  of  the  year  altered 
(1600),  ii.  441. 

Callaghan,  Father,  iv.  176,  178,  216. 

Calleiuiar  (Lord  Almond),  nominated 
as  Treasurer,  iii.  92;  "The  Inci- 
dent," 95-97  ;  against  Montrose,  114, 
116;  disputes  with  Hamilton,  191  ; 
deserts  and  escapes,  192  ;  banished, 
230;  otherwise  mentioned,  78,  86, 
149,   190,  206-207,  211,  262. 

Callendar,  Sir  Alex.  Livingstone  of,  i. 
301,   302,   320-326. 

Calvin,  John,  i.  489,  ii.  27,  34,  79,  iv. 
329 ;   theocracy  of,  ii.  28. 

Calvinism,  Scottish  choice  of,  ii.  85-86  ; 
outgrowing  of,  iii.  17. 

Camhrai,  League  of  (1508),  i.  374. 

Cambuskenneth,  Parliament  at,  i.  232. 

Camden  cited,  ii.  327. 

Cameron,  Clan,  i.  305,  iii.  54,  273, 
iv.  368  ;  of  Glen  Nevis,  ii.   532. 

Cameron,  Allan,  iv.  178-179,  181,  222, 

353- 

Cameron,  Andrew,  iv.  160. 

Cameron,  Dr  Archibald,  i.  196;  iv. 
459,  462,  483,. 490. 

Cameron,  Jessie,  iv.  476,  4S7. 

Cameron,  John,  Bp.  of  Glasgow,  i.  301, 
309-310,  317,  321. 

Cameron,  Rev.  John  (1845),  cited,  iv. 
524. 

Cameron,  Richard  (preacher),  against 
the  Indulged,  iii.  330,  336  ;  sermons 
and  prophecies  of,  356-357;  manifesto 
and  death  of,  358,  iv.  160;  other- 
wise mentioned,  iii.  336,  349,  354. 

Cameron  of  Fassifern,  Cameron  of 
Lochiei.     See  Fassifern,  Lochiel. 

Cameronian  regiment  (1689),  iv.  3,  22- 
24,  26,  142,  149. 

Cameronians — 

Envoys  from,  to  General  Assembly 

(1690),  iv.  34-35. 
Extremist  position  of,  iii.  2,  410  ;  iv. 

35.  50. 
Holyrood  attacked  by,  iii.  418. 
Jacobites,  relations  with,  iv.  124-125, 

127,  144-146,  150,  161,  441. 
Macmillan's  relations  with,  iv.    160- 

162. 
Queensferry  Paper,  the,  iii.  359. 
Rabblings,  iii.  41 8. 
Scope  of  term,  iii.  359. 
Union  with  England  opposed  by,  iv. 

119. 
Campbell,   House  of,  i.  417;  ii.   535; 
iii.  46-47.     See  also  Argj-11. 


550 


INDEX. 


Campbell,  Father,  ii.  507. 

Campbell,  Lady  Ann,  iii.  229,  250-251. 

Campbell,  Archibald,  iii.  183. 

Campbell,  Bp.  Archibald,  iv.  327-329. 

Campbell,  Lord  Archibald.  See  Ar- 
gyll, 3rd  Duke  of. 

Campbell,  Catherine,  iv.  418. 

Campbell,  Charles,  iii.  400-402,  408. 

Campbell,  Colin,  i.  172. 

Campbell,  Colin,  Sheriff-Clerk  of  Ar- 
gyll, iv.  42. 

Campbell,  Captain  Dugald,  iv.  259. 

Campbell,  Captain  Duncan,  iv.  523-525. 

Campbell,  James,  i.  304,  305. 

Campbell,  Sir  James,  iv.  440. 

Campbell,  Professor  Lewis,  iv.  400 ; 
cited,  304,  308. 

Campbell,  Rev.  ,  iv.  307. 

Campbell,  Sir  Mungo,  iii.  107. 

Campbell,  Sir  Nial,  or  Nigel,  i.  207, 
208-209,  215,  235,  496. 

Campbell,  Lord  Neil,  iv.  327. 

Campbell  of  Calder,  Glendaruel,  &c. 
See  Calder,  Glendaruel,  &c. 

Campian,  martyrdom  of,  ii.  280. 

Canaries,  Rev.  Dr,  iv.  48. 

Cannibalism,  i.  16. 

Cannon,  General,  iv.  22-24,  42. 

Cant,  Bp.  Andrew,  iv.  328,  333. 

Cant,  Rev.  Andrew,  iii.  44,  68,  177, 
183,   264,  272  ;  cited,    100. 

Canute,  King  of  England,  i.   53,   169, 

Captives,  severities  to,  i.  113,  129. 

Car,  John,  cited,  i.  457. 

Carausius,  i.  lO. 

Carberry  Hill,  ii.  187. 

Carbroony,  Foster  of,  iv.  383-384. 

Cardonald,  James  Stewart  of,  ii.  20. 

Cardross,  2nd  Lord,  iii.  262. 

Cardross,  3rd  Lord,  iii.  329  ;  iv.  5. 

Carey,  Sir  George,  ii.  286. 

Carey,  Henry,  ii.  223. 

Carey,  John,   ii.    333-335,  373;  cited, 

377.  385.  446,  449.  468,  476. 
Carey,  Robert,  ii.  477. 
Cargill,  Rev.  Donald,  iii.  63,  302,  322, 

356-360,  363. 
Carlaverock,  i.  189- 190. 
Carles,  i.  137. 
Carleton,  iii.  5. 
Carlisle — 

Balliol  at  (1332),  i.  246. 

Border  peace  proclaimed  at   (1557), 

ii-.  35- 
Cession  of,  to  Prince  Henry,  i.  104, 

127. 
Dacre's  defence  of  (1522),  i.  400-401. 
David  L's  escape  to,  i.  106. 
Douglas's  failure  at  (1312),  i.  215. 
Edward  L's  army  at,  i.  189-190. 


Fortification   of,   by  Wm.  Rufus,   i. 

94,   107,   127, 
Henry  H.  knighted  at,  i.  107. 
Kinmont    Willie    rescued    from,    ii. 

406-408. 
Mary  a  prisoner  at,  ii.   197  ;  her  re- 
moval, 200. 
Siege  of,  by  Prince  Charles  (1745), 
iv.  475-476 ;  surrender  of  his  gar- 
rison to  Cumberland,  486-487. 
Wharton's    departure    from,    before 

Solway  Moss,  i.  454-455. 
William  the  Lion's  siege  of,  i.  112. 
Carlos,  Don,  ii.  125,  128. 
Carlyle,   Dr,   iv.    309,    465,    467-470; 

cited,  381,  428-432. 
Carlyle,  Thos.,  ii.  85;  cited,   105;  iii. 

235,  242,  252. 
Carmichael,   Lord  (Hyndford),  iv.  33, 

50,  80,  83. 
Carmichael,    Sheriff- Depute,    iii.    342- 

343; 

Carmichael,  Rev.  Frederick,  iii.  122. 

Carmichael,  Sir  John,  ii.  257,  446. 

Carmichael,  Peter,  i.  489. 

Carnegie,  Robert,  ii.  35,  151. 

Carnegy,  D.,  iii.  78. 

Carnwath,  ist  Earl  of  (Dalzell),  iii.  42 
note,  113  note,  114,  135. 

Carnwath,  6th  Earl  of,  iv.  1S2,  195, 
226,  239. 

Carnwath,  Lockhart  of,  relations  of, 
with  Hamilton,  iv.  97  ;  on  Union 
Commission,  1 10- 1 1 1 ;  protests  against 
the  Union,  122,  133  ;  signs  petition 
to  Louis  XIV.,  146;  Bill  for  toler- 
ation of  Episcopalians,  153,  156; 
Greenshields  case,  154 ;  proposes 
repeal  of  the  Union,  163,  164;  Last 
conversation  with  Hamilton,  165- 
166 ;  relations  with  Bolingbrolce, 
169-170;  prison  and  surveillance, 
184;  hopes  of  Argyll,  259;  view  of 
Mar,  260 ;  ecclesiastical  activities, 
328-334 ;  advice  to  James  regarding 
domestic  difficulties,  352 ;  escapes 
to  the  Continent,  353  ;  death  of,  363  ; 
estimate  of,  81,  87;  cited,  81-84,  88- 
90,  96,  97,  loi,  105,  107,  113,  117, 
123,  124,  126,  130-131,  134,  137, 
143,  146,  149,  153,  232,  266,  267, 
35'.  353-360,  401  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  152,   346. 

Carnwath,  Somerville  of  (1306),  i.  206. 

Carnwath,  Somerville  of  (1425),  i.  301. 

Caroline,  Queen  of  England,  iv.  430, 

43'- 
Carpenter,  Gen.,  iv.  205,  207,  209-210. 
Carrick,  Earl  of  (1278),  i.  1 23- 1 24. 
Carrick,  Earl  of  (Robert  Bruce)  (1286), 

i.  163,  177. 


INDEX. 


551 


Carrick,    Earl    of   (1320)   (son    of   the 

king),  i.  230,  245,  248,   279. 
Carrick,    John,   Earl   of.      See   Robert 

III. 
Carstairs,  Captain,  iii.  329. 
Carstairs,    Mr   (Hither    of    "Cardinal" 

Carstairs),  iii.  363,  395. 
Carstairs  (Carstares),  Rev.  Wm.  ("Car- 
dinal"), papers  of,  seized,  iii.  325; 

tortured,   377-379;   assurance  given 

to,  as  to  confessions,  378,  379,  395- 

396  ;    persuades  William  to  conces- 
sion, iv.   50 ;    estimate  of,    34,    77  ; 

otherwise  mentioned,  375,  376,  380, 

381,  412;   iv.   48,  61,  73,  92,   III, 

112,   123,   156,   159. 
Carswall,  ii.  73. 

Carte,  Thos.,  iv.  436  ;  cited,  iii.  414, 
Carthusian  Order,  i.  310. 
Caryl,  Lady  Elizabeth,  iv.  426. 
Casket  Letters — 

Authenticity  of,  ii.  563-569;  denied 
by  Mary,  201. 

"  Book  of  Articles"  in  relation  to,  ii. 
566-567. 

Chronology  of,  ii.  567. 

Commissioners'  examination  of,  ii. 
208,  212-213. 

Condition  of,  ii.  564. 

Contents  of  casket,  ii.  564. 

Contents  of  letters,  ii.  174,  185. 

Discovery  of,  ii.  190. 

Elizabeth's  efforts  to  obtain,  ii.  288. 

Evidence  from,  ii.  169. 

Forgeries,  features  suggesting,  ii.  566, 
568. 

French  the  language  of,  ii.  567. 

Lethington's  exhibition  of,  to  Eng- 
lish Commissioners,  ii.  189,  202, 
230. 

Letter  ii.  in  relation  to  Crawford's 
statements,  ii.  568. 

Mary  refused  sight  of,  ii.  201,  213. 

Missing  letter  of  1567,  theory  as  to, 
ii.  565-567. 

"  Secresy "  as  to,  advocated  by 
Bowes,  ii.   569. 

Sole  direct  proof  brought  against 
Mary,  ii.  563. 

Tampering  with,  question  as  to,  ii. 
191. 

Tone  of,  ii.  568. 
Cassilis,  Earl  of,  ii.  545. 
Cassilis,  Earl  of  (1543),  in  James  V.'s 

raid,  i.  454  ;   treason  of,  462,  ii.  8  ; 

schemes   for    murder   of   Beaton,    i. 

481-4S2,  485,  486;  appointed  Privy 

Councillor    by    Henry,    492 ;    death 

of,  ii.  43  ;   otherwise  mentioned,    i. 

470,  475;  ii.   35. 
Cassilis,    Earl    of    (1560),    of    Mary's 


party,  ii.  142 ;  turns  Presbyterian, 
166 ;  offers  himself  as  hostage  to 
Moray,  217  ;  joins  Lennox's  party, 
237,  242. 

Cassilis,  Earl  of  (1597),  ii.  543,  559. 

Cassilis  (1639),  iii.  27,66,  77,  105,  112, 
I53»  I95>  198,  208,  228,  231. 

Cassilis    (1661),     iii.    294,     301,    323, 

Castle    Leather,    Major   Eraser  of,   iv. 

213-215. 
Castles,  i.  158-159. 
Castre,  John  de,  i.  225. 
Cateau  Cambresis,  Peace  of,  ii.  45,  46. 
Cathcart,  Col.,  iv,  211,  218. 
Catherine  de'  Medici,  Moray's  attempt 

at  alliance  with,  ii.    195  ;    entreated 

by    Mary   for   aid,    196 ;    otherwise 

mentioned,   97,   99,    114,    125,    126, 

139,   160,   167. 
Catholics,  English — 

Charles  L,  loyalty  to,  iii.  73. 

Charles  IL  succoured  by,  iii.  259. 

Civil  War,  in  the,  iii.  107. 

Jacobite  staunchness  of,  iv.  204. 

Persecution  of  (164 1),  iii.  83. 

Popish  Plot,  iii.  336. 
Catholics,  Scottish,  strength  of  (1627), 

iii.  14. 
Catrail,  i.  63,  86. 
Cattle-houghing,  ii.  542,  546. 
Cavers,  Douglas  of,  i.  416. 
Cawdor,  Campbell  of,  i.  398,  417,  419, 

420. 
Cecil,  Col.,  iv.  436,  438,  441. 
Cecil,  Dr  (priest  spy),  ii.  408-409,  443- 

444. 
Cecil,  Sir  Robert.     See  Salisbury. 
Cecil,  Wm.     See  Burghley. 
"  Cecil's  Diary,"  ii.  567. 
Cellach,  Bp.  of  Alban,  i.  44. 
Celtic  institutions,  i.  18. 
Celts- 
Architecture  of,  64,  68. 

Arms  and  dress  of,  i.  77. 

Art  of,  i.  76. 

Christianity  of,  i.  34-35. 

Civil  War  ( 1 153),  in,  i.  109-110. 

Customary  law  of,  i.  81. 

Districts  and  branches  of,  i.  i,  3. 

Divisions  of,  i.  9. 

Drunkenness  of,  ii.  555. 

Ecclesiastical  customs  of,  i.  95-96. 

Ilarlaw,  at,  i.  291-292. 

Land  tenure  among,  i.  80-83. 

Lowland  estimate  of  (1640),  iii.  75. 

National  interests  opposed  by  — 
"  auld  enemies  of  Scotland,"  i. 
97,  208,  256,  417,  483. 

Northern,  general  attitude  of,  i.  291. 

Physical  characteristics  of,  i.  18. 


552 


INDEX. 


Place-names  of,  i.  63. 

Poetry  of,  i.  18,  20. 

Remains  of,  i.  61-62,  64,  85. 

Rising  of  ( 1 130),  i.  102-103. 

Royal  succession  among,  i.  80,  127. 

Services  exacted  among,  i.  140. 

Scots,  attitude  towards,  i.  291. 

Tribal  system  of,  i.  77-81,  133. 

Turbulence  of,  causes  for,  i.  372,  383. 

War  of  Independence  (1297),  in,  i. 
182,  495-496. 
Cenn  Cruach,  i.  494-495. 
Cessford,    Kers  of,  i.    339,   408,   480, 

481  ;  ii.  17,  376,  395,  415,  475. 
Chalmers,  Dr,  cited,  iv.  403-405. 
Chalmers,  David,  ii.  295. 
Chambers,  i.  312. 
Chambers  cited,  iv.  416. 
Chambers  family,  i.  308. 
Chapuys  as  an  authority,  i.  461  ;  cited, 

437.  457,  461. 

Chariots,  i.  73,  86. 

Charles  I.,  King,  birth  of,  ii.  467 ; 
anti-Catholic  policy,  iii.  5  ;  marriage, 
ib.  ;  Palatinate  War,  ib. ;  financial 
straits,  5-6,  59,  61,  72 ;  accession 
proclamation,  7  ;  the  Revocation,  see 
Church  —  Lands  —  Alienated;  Kirk 
endowment  policy,  8,  9,  14;  change 
in  constitutions  of  Privy  Council  and 
Court  of  Session,  8-9,  11  ;  suppresses 
Tuesday  hecklings  of  preachers,  12; 
Decreits  Arbitral,  15  ;  on  the  Articles 
of  Perth,  16 ;  Liturgy  project,  18  ; 
comes  to  Holyrood  for  coronation 
(1633),  19  ;  Hogg's  list  of  grievances, 
19-20  ;  returns  to  England,  22  ;  on 
extempore  prayers,  24 ;  imposition 
of  liturgy  on  the  Kirk,  25-27  ;  ob- 
jections to  the  Covenant,  TfT^ ;  mis- 
take in  not  withdrawing  the  Re- 
vocation, 34 ;  summons  a  council 
and  despatches  Hamilton  with  pro- 
clamations, 34  -  36  ;  prepared  for 
military  resistance  to  Covenanters, 
37  ;  grants  a  (jeneral  Assembly,  38  ; 
counter-covenant,  ib.,  40;  appoints 
Huntly,  Traquair,  and  Roxburgh  to 
posts,  42 ;  affection  for  Hamilton, 
46;  raises  forces,  52;  plan  of  cam- 
paign, 53  ;  the  "  Large  Declaration," 
ib.,  68;  estimate  of  Huntly,  56,  75 
note ;  in  favour  of  active  measures, 
57  ;  issues  Proclamatinn  (May  l)  from 
Durham,  59  ;  conciliation  I'roclama- 
tion  (May  14)  from  Newcastle,  60; 
marches  to  Berwick,  ib.  ;  negotiates 
with  Covenanters,  61-64;  signs  a 
treaty,  64  ;  folly  of  his  surrender, 
64-65  ;  Proclamation  as  to  Assembly, 
65  ;    creates    favourable    impression, 


ib.  ;  desires  interviews  with  Scottish 
leaders,  66 ;  authorises  Hamilton  to 
play  the  spy,  66-67  ;  determines  to 
retire  to  London,  68 ;  promotes  Ogilvy 
and  Ruthven,  70 ;  the  Short  Parlia- 
ment, 72  ;  vacillation,  73  ;  commis- 
sions Stratford  to  march  north,  78  ; 
Montrose's  letter  to,  81  ;  the  Long 
Parliament,  82 ;  fall  of  Stratford, 
ib.  ;  returns  to  Scotland,  82  -  83  ; 
letter  to  Montrose,  88 ;  attempts  at 
conciliation,  90;  "The  Incident," 
92-94,  97-99 ;  Irish  rebellion,  100, 
102  ;  the  Remonstrance,  loi  ;  ap- 
points Conservators  of  the  Peace, 
ib.  ;  affair  of  the  five  members,  102  ; 
at  Oxford,  105,  106 ;  disregards 
Montrose,  106,  no;  declaration  to 
the  Scots  (1643),  107;  Montrose's 
advice  against  Treaty  of  Uxbridge, 
134 ;  the  Uxbridge  propositions 
(1645),  134,  167,  169;  the  Book  of 
Sports,  136  ;  designs  of  joining  Mon- 
trose, 136,  149;  never  realised,  150; 
at  Naseby,  42  note,  113  iiote,  144; 
refuses  to  promise  to  establish  Presby- 
terianism  in  England,  150,  164,  167, 
169,  171  ;  too  many  irons  in  the 
fire,  164-165,  173;  negotiations  with 
the  Scots  as  to  joining  them,  165- 
1 74  ;  treats  with  France  for  aid,  171; 
last  army  surrenders,  ib.  ;  leaves  Ox- 
ford to  join  the  Scots,  174  ;  betrayed 
by  them,  175  and  note;  offers  three 
years'  trial  of  Presbyterianism,  181, 
185;  sold  by  the  Scots,  181  - 182  ; 
Scottish  national  sentiment  for,  182- 
183,  186;  in  the  hands  of  the  In- 
dependents, 183  ;  escapes  to  Caris- 
brooke,  185  ;  the  Engagement,  185- 
188;  in  strict  confinement,  1S6; 
meeting  with  Hamilton,  197  ;  exe- 
cution of,  201,  202;  estimate  of, 
202  ;  manner  of,  4  ;  characterics  of, 
179;  imjiossibility  of  task  of,  4  ;  other- 
wise meiUioned,  ii.  520;  iii.  105. 
Charles  II.,  King,  birth  of,  iii.  22; 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant  forced 
on,  179,  209,  228-229,  231;  pro- 
claimed king  on  conditions,  201  ;  re- 
([uested  to  cast  off  Montrose,  208  ; 
assurances  to  Montrose,  210,  211, 
222,  224 ;  sends  Montrose  to  Scot- 
land, 211,  220;  deserts  him,  213, 
222,  230;  negotiations  at  Breda,  211- 
212,  221-223,  228-229;  sends  Mon- 
trose the  Garter,  212,  222;  Treaty 
of  Breda,  213;  negotiations  as  to 
marriage  with  Argyll's  daughter,  229, 
250-251  ;  letter  to  Fleming  regarding 
Montrose,  224-226  ;   learns  death  of 


INDEX. 


553 


Montrose,  231  ;  arrives  in  Spey- 
mouth,  230,  231  ;  corrupted  by 
Covenanters,  230-234  ;  si(;ns  declara- 
tion against  his  father  and  mother, 
233-234;  promises  to  Argyll,  245; 
tlie  start,  246  ;  Remonstrants'  atti- 
tude to,  248 ;  crowned  at  Scone, 
249  ;  invades  England,  255  ;  saved 
by  Wogan  after  Worcester,  258,  269  ; 
letters  to  Scottish  adherents,  265-266 ; 
conversation  with  Don  John  regard- 
ing Argyll,  297 ;  tlie  Restoration, 
283,  286-287  ;  announcement  as  to 
Scottish  ecclesiastical  policy,  286, 
288,  290 ;  hatred  of  Argyll,  287  ; 
imposition  of  prelacy  on  Scotland, 
298  ;  Act  of  Supremacy  (1669),  320- 
321  ;  Popish  riot,  336  ;  excommuni- 
cated by  Cargill,  63,  363  ;  Test  Act 
(16S1),  367;  Rye  House  Plot,  380; 
death  of,  385  ;  estimate  of,  i.  382, 
iii.  385;  characteristics  of,  231  ;  re- 
ligion of,  316,  320,  367  ;  policy  of 
toleration,  316,  322-323,  365;  other- 
wise mentioned,  68,  199,  301,  355, 
368,   369.  398. 

Charles  V.,  Emperor,  i.  399-400. 

Charles  VII.,  King  of  France,  i.  307- 
308,  326,  332. 

Charles  IX.,  King  of  France,  ii.  228, 
240,  257,  388. 

Charles  XII.,  King  of  Sweden,  iv.  173, 
175,  1S6,  227,  iSl-253,  255-260, 
262,  263. 

Charles  Edward,  Prince,  birth  of,  iv. 
281  ;  childhood  and  education,  425- 
426  ;  Governors,  349-35°'  354,  422  ; 
service  with  Spanish  army,  427 ; 
goes  to  France,  438,  442,  444-445  ; 
at  Gravelines,  447  -  449 ;  in  Paris, 
440-450  ;  correspondence  with  his 
father,  449,  451,  452,  459,  469,  473  ; 
schemes  and  letters,  452  ;  lands  at 
Eriskay,  458 ;  at  Borradale,  ih.  ; 
price  set  on,  459  ;  raises  the  standard, 
ib.,  461  ;  at  Invergarry  and  Dalna- 
cardoch,  461  ;  at  Blair,  Dunkeld,  and 
Perth,  419,  462  ;  relations  with  Lord 
George  Alurray,  464  ;  crosses  Forth, 
ib.  ;  enters  Holyrood,  466-467  ;  Pres- 
tonpans,  468-470  ;  no  political  en- 
thusiasm for,  471-472;  treaty  with 
Louis,  473 ;  thwarted  by  Murray, 
474  ;  siege  of  Carlisle,  475  ;  marches 
south,  476-47S ;  reaches  ISIacclesfield, 
478;  at  Derby,  479-480;  retreats 
north,  48 1,  483;  at  Glasgow,  490; 
Falkirk  tight,  492-404  ;  de-ertions, 
496,  497,  500  ;  submits  to  Murray's 
demand  for  retreat,  499  ;  the  retreat, 
500-501  ;  takes  Inverness,  502  ;  ill  at 


Elgin,  503  ;  at  Inverness,  506;  before 
Culloden,  507-508;  the  battle,  510, 
514-516;  flight  and  wanderings,  518; 
degeneration,  521  ;  characteristics  of, 
in  childhood,  426  ;  physical  charac- 
teristics, 445  ;  stcretiveness  from  his 
father,  256  ;  good-nature,  505  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  168,  183,  257,  338, 
414,  420. 

Charles  Stuart  (son  of  Sobieski  Stuart) 
cited,  i.  236. 

Charteris,  i.  25S. 

Charteris  (preacher),  iii.  323,  406;    iv. 

34. 
Charteris,  John,  i.  475,  476,  478-479. 
Charters,  introduction  of,  i,   loi,  133, 

135.  502. 

Chastelard,  ii.  123-124. 

Chateaudoux,  iv.  276. 

Chateauneuf  cited,  ii.  326. 

Chatelherault,  Duke  of  (2nd  Earl  of 
Arran),  Regent,  i.  460 ;  makes  Beaton 
Chancellor,  ib.,  461  ;  national  sup- 
port of,  462 ;  relations  with  Beaton, 
463  ;  dominates  the  nobles,  465  ; 
story  of  the  forged  will,  466-467  ; 
the  marriage  treaty,  470  ;  joins 
Beaton,  471  ;  retires  to  Linlithgow, 
477  ;  fled  to  Blackness,  478 ;  holds 
a  parliament,  479 ;  Ancrum  Moor, 
480-4S1  ;  sets  free  Celtic  captives, 
483,  508  ;  forces  of,  fooled  by  Angus, 
483  ;  pelted  in  Edinburgh,  ii.  2 ; 
siege  of  St  Andrews,  3,  20 ;  sur- 
rounded by  traitors,  8  ;  Pinkie,  10  ; 
unpopularity,  12 ;  obtains  Duchy 
of  Chatelherault,  13;  intrigued  against 
by  Mary  of  Guise,  16-17;  resigns 
Regency,  17;  trial  of  Wallace,  19; 
declines  to  fight  against  England,  35  ; 
joins  Protestant  party,  57  ;  recog- 
nised as  heir  to  the  crown,  64 ; 
restored  to  French  property,  69  ; 
illegitimacy  of,  urged  by  Lennox, 
97,  129  ;  action  regarding  Bothwell's 
alleged  plot,  11 2-1 13  ;  exiled  for  five 
years,  155  ;  appointed  by  Mary 
Lieutenant  of  Scotland,  200  ;  seized 
by  Moray,  217  ;  death  and  estimate 
of,  258  ;  •inreliability  of  testimony  of, 
i.  453,  467,  469  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 452,  453,  465,  466  ;  ii.  2-3, 
25.  38-39.  55.  60,  61,  66,  78,  79,  109, 
138,  142,  150-152,  229. 

Chattan,  Clan,  i.  285,  305,  411,  ii.  17, 
24,  iii.  7,  iv.  211  ;  Mackintosh 
slaughter,  ii.  536. 

Chepman,  Walter,  i.  384. 

Cheshire  petition  (1640),  iii.  82. 

Chevy  Chase,  i.  281. 

Cheyne,  Ranald,  i.  248. 


554 


INDEX. 


Chiesly,  iii.  198.     See  also  Dairy. 
Chiffinch,  iii.  234. 
Chirchind,  battle  of,  i.  31. 
Chirnside,  Ninian,   ii.   361   7Wte,    570- 

573- 
Chisholme,  Bp.,  of  Vaizon  (Vaison),  11. 

440,  502. 
Christie,  Bp.,  iv.  326. 
Christison,  Dr  David,  cited,  i.  17,  19, 

65-66. 
Church  in  Scotland,  post- Reformation. 

See  Kirk. 
Church  in  Scotland,  pre- Reformation — 
Benefices — 

Bribes,  as,  i.  394. 

Purchase    of,     in    Rome,    action 

against,  i.   362. 
Scramble  for,  i.  424. 
Bishops — 

Appointments  of,  James  III.'s  re- 
monstrance as  to,  i.  347,  349. 
Burgh  privileges  conferred  by,  i. 

143- 

Court  of,  i.  146-147. 

Patriotism  of,  i.  lOl,  1 14,  129,  375. 

Perjuries  by,  i.  165,  191,  237. 

Statesmen,  i.  384. 
Celtic,  i.  95-96. 
Corruption  and  profligacy  of  prelates 

and  clergy,  i.   310,   320,   384-385. 

424-425,  428,  450  ;   ii.    I,  15,  92, 

122. 
Court  of  Bishops,  &c.,  i.  146-147. 
Educational  influence  of,  i.  156,  159. 
Emancipation  of  serfs  encouraged  by, 

i.  140-141. 
English  attitude  towards,  i.  99-100. 
Exactions  of,  i.  427-428,  433. 
Falaise,  Treaty   of,   position  under, 

i.  113-114,  129. 
Heresy.     See  (hat  title. 
Ignorance  of  the  clergy,  i.  425. 
Kirk  contrasted  with,  ii.  419. 
Lands — 

Alienation  of,  to  lay  holders,  i.  95- 

97,  3«0- 
Conditions   obtaining   on,   i.    139- 

140,   159. 
Position  of,  in  early  times,  i.  81. 
Revocation  of,  by  Charles  I.,  iii. 
7-12,   14;  retention  with  a  rent, 
15  ;   Revocation  ratified,  21. 
Monasteries.     See  that  title. 
Pagan  beliefs  not  eradicated  by,   i. 

154-I5S- 
Papacy,  relations  with,  i.  loi,  154. 

Parliamentary  attitude  to  wards  (1427), 

i.  309. 
Patriotism  of  bishops  and  clergy,  i. 

101,  114,  129,  163,  165,  212,  213, 

375.  405-406,  422. 


Patronage  in,  iv.  157. 
Persecutions  by,  i.  430-431. 
Preaching  in,  i.  426. 
Reformation  under  James  V.,  nature 

of,  422-423,  427- 
Robbers   of,   as    "defenders   of  the 

Faith,"  i.  479. 
Suits  touching,  i.  152-153. 
Taxation  of,  by  Popes,  i.  154. 
Teinds  (tithes) — 

Abuses  as  to  collection  of,  iii.  10. 

Malappropriation   of,    iii.    10   and 
note,  13. 

Sale  of  (1627),  iii.  14-15. 

Temporalities  distinguished  from, 
iii.   13. 

Valuation  of  (1628),  iii.  15. 
Churches — 

Closing   of,    on    "lawful    days,"   L 

^57.  161. 

Decay  and  neglect  of,  ii.   508  ;   iii. 
24-25. 
Churchill,  Mr,  iv.  340,  341. 
Clan,   early  mention  of,   i.    186,    198, 

284. 
Clancarty,  Lord,  iv.  463. 
Clanqwhevil,  i.  284-285. 
Clanranald  (1544),  i.  472,  482,  509. 
Clanranald  (1615),  ii.  533,  535. 
Clanranald  (the  young)  (1615),  ii.  534, 

537- 
Clanranald   (1706),  iv.    117,    137,   191, 

192,   194,   197,  218. 
Clanranald  (1716),  iv.  231,  244,  271. 
Clanranald  (1745),  iv.  471,  496,  507. 
Clanranald  (the  young)  (1745),  iv.  458- 

459- 
Clansmen.     See  Highlanders. 
Clare,  Gilbert  de.  Earl  of  Gloucester, 

i.  172-173- 
Clare,  Thomas  de,  i.  163. 
Clarence,  Duke  of,  i.  294. 
Clarendon,   Earl  of,   iii.    301  ;    hurries 

intrusion  of  prelacy,  291,  298  ;  cited, 

47,  98,  270  720te. 
Claverhouse,  John    Graham    of.      See 

Dundee. 
Clavering,  iii.  116. 
Cleland,  Lieut.-Col.,  iii.  347,  401-402; 

iv.  22-23,  35. 
Clement  III.,  Pope,  i.  1 14. 
Clement  VIII.,  Pope,  ii.  252,  388  note  ; 

James  VI. 's  letter  to,  501-503. 
Clementina,    Queen    (Princess    Maria 

C'lemenlinaSobieska),Wogan's  choice 

of,  iv.  261  ;  his  escort,  273,  277-278  ; 

her  jealousy,  277  ;   champions  Mar, 

335,  337  ;  li^T  temjicr,  347-348,  426  ; 

her  grievances,    349-350  ;    retires  to 

a  convent,   350-352,    354;    letter  to 

her    sister,     353  ;     ill  -  health,    425  ; 


INDEX 


555 


death,  427  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
266,  354,  383. 

Clerk,  Father  Andrew,  ii.  572. 

Clerks,  i.  150. 

Cliftbrd  cited,  i.  443,  444- 

Clifford,  H.  Robert,  i.  181-182,  185, 
201,  205,  210,  219,   224. 

Cloncaird,  Mure  of,  ii.  543. 

Cluny.     See  Macpherson. 

Cluny'sCage,  i.  15,  39. 

Cobbett,  Col.,  iii.  268,  269. 

Cochloeus,  i.  432. 

Cochrane,  Col.,  iii.  95:99.  II2. 

Cochrane,  Sir  James,  iii.  358. 

Cochrane,  Lady  Jane,  iii.  376. 

Cochrane,  Sir  John,  in  Jerviswoode's 
plot,  iii.  376  ;  in  Argyll's  rising, 
399-402  ;  escapes,  403  -  404  ;  par- 
doned,  412  ;    otherwise   mentioned, 

390.   391.  397  ;  iv.   32- 
Cochrane,  Robert  (mason),  i.  343-345' 

359- 
Cockburn,  Captain,  ii.  151,  154. 
Cockburn  of  Ormiston.     See  Ormiston. 
Cock  -  fighting   among   schoolboys,   iv, 

394- 
Cockpen,  Laird  of,  ii.  338. 

Coinage — 

Billon  (148 1 ),  i.  345. 
Coins  current,  ii.  553. 
Depreciated  value  of  (1572),  ii.  251, 
259i  301,  315  ;  efforts  to  improve, 

333- 
James  III.'s  dealings  with,  i.  349. 

Mary  Ryall  penny,  ii.  1 55. 

Scarcity  of  money,  iv.  416. 

Scottish  and  English  equivalents,  ii. 

553- 
Coke,  Tom,  iii.  251. 
Colin,  Capitaine  F.,  cited,  iv.  438,  442, 

447- 

Colin,  King,  i.  50. 

Coll  Keitache  (Colkitto).  See  Mac- 
donald. 

Coltness,  Sir  James  Stewart  of,  cited, 
iv.   528. 

Columba,  St,  language  of,  i.  15  ;  con- 
versions and  church  of,  30,  35  ; 
powers  of,  72-74  ;  remains  of,  re- 
moved to  Dunkeid,  42,  57  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  21,  126. 

Columbanus,  St,  i.  34-35. 

Colville,  John,  career  of,  ii.  236  ;  envoy 
to  Elizabeth,  290-291  ;  plot  against 
James  VL,  368,  371-372,  374  ;  Both- 
well's  letter  to,  on  poisoning  of  James, 
374  ;  obsequious  apology  to  James, 
390 ;  betrays  Bothwell's  brother,  394 ; 
turns  Catholic,  468,  495  ;  wild  news 
of,  467-468  ;  conspiracies  of,  448 ; 
recantation  and  death  of,  ib. ;   esti- 


mate of,  3S9-390  ;  cited,  341,  346, 
356,  384,  385.  389.  398  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  287,  288,  296,  355,  436, 

571,    572. 
Colville,  Wm.,  iii.  71. 
Colvin,  Richard,  ii.  501. 
Colzean,  Kennedy  of,  ii.  542-544. 
Colzean,  Lady,  ii.  546. 
Combas,  M.  de,  ii.  20. 
Combat,  trial  by.     See  Battle. 
Comines,  Robert  de  (Earl  of  Northum- 

bria),  i.  91. 
Comiies,  i.  151. 
Commendation,  i.  148. 
"Commendation"  of  Scotland  (924), 

i.  45-46,  168,  497- 
Commerce.     See  Trade. 
Committee  of  Articles,  i.  267.     See  also 

Lords  of  the  Articles. 
Committee   of  Causes,    institution    of, 

i.  267. 
Committee     of    Public     Safety  —  The 

Tables    (1596),    ii.    411,    415-416; 

(1637),  iii.  28,  52,  60,  64,  66 
Communitas — 

Burgh,  i.  143. 

Edward    L's   claim   resisted    by,   i. 
171-172. 

National,  i.  147. 
'  Complaynt  of  Scotland,  The,'  cited, 

ii-  31-32.. 
Compurgation,  i.  149. 
Comyn  (1332),  i.  246. 
Comyn,  John,    Lord    of  Badenoch,   i. 

162,    164,    167,    177  ;    claim   of,    to 

throne,    174. 
Comyn,  John  (the  Red),  ancestry  of,  i. 

97  ;     captured    by     Edward,     178 ; 

Guardian    of    Scotland,    188,     189  ; 

dispute  with  Bruce,    189 ;   in   arms, 

192;  banished,  193-194;  murder  of, 

174,  201-204. 
Comyn,   Walter  (Earl  of  Monteith),  i. 

120-121. 
Comyn,  Provost  Wm.,  i.  97,  107. 
Comyn,  Earls  of  Buchan.     See  Buchan. 
Conde,  ii.  95,  114. 
Condition    of  the   country   (1587),    ii. 

339;  (1592),  364;  (1596),  406. 
Confession  of  Faith,  ii.  74-78. 
Consanguinity,  degrees  of,  i.  427. 
Conservators  of  the  Peace  (1641-1642), 

iii.  10 1. 
Constable,  office  of,  i.  154. 
Constables  under  Justices  of  the  Peace 

(1610),  ii.  505. 
Constabulary,    Mounted,   James    VL's 

institution  of,  ii.  479. 
Constantine  MacFergus,  King,  i.  42,  57. 
Constantino  MacKenneth,  King,  i.  42- 

43.  57- 


556 


INDEX. 


Constantine  I.,  King,  confusion  as  to, 

i-  57-  . 
Constantine  II.,  King,  i.  43-44,  46-47, 

49,  497,  498- 
Constantine  III.,  King,  i.  52. 
Constantius  Chlorus,  i.  11, 
Con  venticles,Edward'smeasures  against, 

i.  180. 
Conway,  iii.  73,  78. 
Cope,  Gen.  Sir  John,  iv.  460-464,  466- 

467  ;  at  Prestonpans,  468-470. 
Copeland,  John  de,  i.  258. 
"Corax."     6"i?e  Grange,  Kirkcaldy  of. 
Corbie  Castle,  Howard  of,  iv.  206. 
Cornwall,  Earl  of  (John),  i.  253. 
Corphar,  Janet,  iv.  315. 
Corsack,  Laird  of,  iii.  312. 
Cortry  (Cokky),  James,  ii.  71. 
Cottington,  iii.  210. 
Cotton,  Sir  John  Hynde,  iv.  437,  439, 

441. 
Coull,  Sir  George  Stewart  Mackenzie 

of,  iv.  384. 
Councils,  national,  i.  146-147. 
Coupland,  i.  257. 
Courcelles   (de   Prean)    cited,    ii.    323, 

325,  329,  332-334. 
Court  of  the  Four  Burghs,  i.  143. 
Courts,  various,  i.  146-147,  150-151, 
Covenant,  National.     See  njider  Kirk. 
Covenant,  New  ("Queensferry  Paper"), 

iii-  358-359- 
Covenant,    Solemn   League   and.      See 

under  Kirk. 
Covenanters  {see  also  Kirk) — 

Act  of  Classes  (1649),  iii.  201,  207; 

rescinded,  251. 
Airs  Moss,  iii.  358. 
Alford,  iii.  1 47 -149. 
Auldearn,  iii.  141-144. 
"Blind  Band"  (1640),  iii.  72. 
"  Bluidie  Banner,"  the,  iii.  353  and 

note,  358. 
Bothwell  Bridge,  iii.  351-353. 
Breda  negotiations  with  Charles  II., 

iii.  2H,  212,  221-223,  228-229. 
Cameronians.     See  that  title. 
Charles    I.'s    negotiations   with,    iii. 

62-65,   70,   72,    165-174;   Charles 

bated  by,    175-176;  sold  by,  181- 

182. 
Convention  held  by  (June  1640),  iii. 

74- 
Desecration  of  graves  by,  iii.  350. 
Difficulties  of,  iii.  60,  61,  65. 
Drumclog  fight,  iii.  346-347. 
Dunbar,  iii.  237-242. 
Dutch  intrigue  (1666),  iii.  307. 
"Engagement,   The,"    iii.    185-188; 

Kng'ificrs    (list)ualifie<l     for     office, 

201  ;  banished,  230, 


English  allies  thrown   over   by,   iii. 

196,  255,  257. 
French  intrigue   of  (1639-1640),   iii. 

71- 

Inverkeithing,  iii.  253-254. 

Inverlochy,  iii.  132-133. 

"  Killing  time,"  the,  iii.  381-396. 

Kilsyth,  iii.  153-156. 

Language  of,  iii.  109  note, 

Marston  Moor,  iii.  116. 

Massacres  of  women  and  children, 
iii.  128  7iote,  151,  158  and  ttote, 
159,  162-163;  of  Dunaverty  gar- 
rison,   1 84  and  note. 

Military  operations  of  (1639),  iii.  52 
et  seq. 

Miracles  chronicled  among,  iii,  340. 

"No   quarter"  method  of,  iii.  347, 

353,  357- 
Parliamentary  demands  of  (1639),  iii. 

70. 
Pentland   Rising,   iii.    307-309,  312- 

3 1 3  and  note. 
Philiphaugh,  iii.  1 28  note,  1 57- 1 59. 
Prisoners   in    Dunnottar   Castle,    iii. 

408. 
Protesters.     See  that  title. 
"Purging"  of  the  army  by,  iii.  232, 

237- 
Quarrels  of  Welshites  and  Hamilton- 

ians(i679),  iii.  348-350. 
"  Queensferry  Paper,"  iii.  358-359. 
Remonstrants.     See  that  title. 
Renwickites,  iii.  389-390,  400-402. 
Resolutioners.     See  that  title. 
Sharp  murdered  by,  iii.  339,  342-344. 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant  with 

English  Presbyterians  (1643).     ^^^ 

Covenant,  Solemn  League  and. 
Temper  of  (1679),  iii.  340,  348-350, 

.354- 
Tippermuir,  iii.  122-123. 
Toleration  offered  by,  nature  of,  iii. 
177-178;  views  on  "vomit  of  tolera- 
tion," i.  429. 
Worcester,  iii.  258. 
Cowper,  Rev.  John,  ii.  330,  433,  454, 

459- 

Cowper,  Rev. (1705),  iv.  315. 

Cox,  ii.  28. 

Cmb,  John,  i.  228,  229,  272,  503. 

Craftsmen,    independence    and    turbu- 
lence of,  ii.  547-548,  556. 

Craggs,   iv.  263,  266,    268,    270,   335- 

336. 
Craig  (preacher),  interview  of,  with 
Lethington,  ii.  237 ;  on  Morton's 
arrest,  269 ;  prophecy  regarding 
Arran,  301  ;  subscribes  to  condem- 
nation of  exiled  preachers,  307  ; 
strife  with  non-subscribing  ministers. 


INDEX. 


557 


317;    estimate   of,    186,    212,    233; 

otherwise  mentioned,  288,  355. 
Craig,  Mungo,  iv.  57. 
Craig,  Sir  Thomas,  ii.  562. 
Craigdarroch,  Ferguson  of,  iv.  184. 
Craigie,  i.  462,  464,  478. 
Craigingelt  cited,  ii.  449,  459,  468. 
Craigmillar,  conference  at,  ii.  171. 
Crannoges,  i.  60-63,  85. 
Cranstoun,  ii.  130-131. 
Cranstoun  (preacher),  ii.  418. 
Cianstoim,  Lady,  ii.  515. 
Cranstoun,  Lord,  ii.  504. 
Cranstoun,  Mr,  ii.  559. 
Cranstoun,  Thos. ,  ii.  390  note. 
Cranstoun,  Thos.,   ii.   454,   456,    458- 

459,   571. 

Cranstoun,  Thos.,  n.  481. 

Cranstoun,  Wm.,  ii.  560. 

Cranstoun,  Sir  William,  i.  329. 

Crauford,  Lord,  ii.  534. 

Crawar,  Paul,  i.  310-31 1. 

Crawford,  2nd  Earl  of,  i.  295. 

Crawford,  3rd  Earl  of,  i.  325. 

Crawford,  4th  Earl  of  (The  Tiger),  i, 
325,  327-331. 

Crawford,  5lh  Earl  of,  i.  339,  342,  349. 

Crawford,  6th  Earl  of,  i.  379. 

Crawford,  Earl  of,  ii.  292,  316,  343, 
345-348. 

Crawford,  1 6th  Earl  of,  in  "  the  In- 
cident," iii.  94-99;  in  prison,  135; 
released,  156;  escapes  after  Philip- 
haugh,  159;  otherwise  mentioned, 
106,   112,   116. 

Crawford,  Earl  of,  on  Payne's  torture, 
iv.  32 ;  estimate  of,  2 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,   26,  29,  50,  75, 

Crawford,  Thos.  ("Gauntlets"),  evi- 
dence of,  as  to  Mary  and  Darnley, 
ii.  208,  209,  567-568 ;  accuses  Leth- 
ington,  221  ;  ravages  Hamilton  ten- 
antry, 233, 251  ;  captures  Dumbarton, 
235  ;  defeated  by  Hamiltons,  242. 

Cressingham,  Treasurer,  i.  179. 

Cricliton  (Creighton),  Capt.,  iii.  393; 
cited,  353,   395. 

Crichton  (Creighton),  Father,  ii.  281- 
282,  311,  344,  363,  366,  367,  395, 
443;  cited,  122,  495. 

Cricliton,  Lord,  i.  347,  352,  360. 

Crichton,  Moderator,  iv.  48. 

Crichton,  Margaret,  i.  352,  360. 

Crichton,  Sir  William  (Chancellor),  i. 
320-325. 

Cricliton  of  Brunston,  of  Frendraght. 
Sec  Brunston,  Frendraght. 

Crinan,  Abbot  of  Dunkeld,  i.  53. 

Crockett,  S.  K.,  i.  494. 

Croft,  Sir  James,  ii.  61,  62;  cited,  49, 
57.  70. 


Crom  Cruach,  i.  494-495. 

Cromarty,  1st  Earl  of  (Lord  Tarbet), 
ii.  550;  iii.  417,  421  ;  iv.  9,  10,  36, 
50,  83,  96,  97,  106  ;  cited,  574. 

Cromarty,  3rd  Earl  of,  iv.  503,  506. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  *'a  greeting  deevil," 
iii.  41  note,  197  ;  Montrose's  pro- 
phecy of,  86;  at  Marston  Moor,  116; 
the  new  model,  134,  136  ;  for  tolera- 
tion, 144;  Preston,  192;  dines  with 
Ai;gyll,  197  ;  ofTers  Preston  prisoners 
for  sale,  ib.  ;  in  Ireland,  210  ;  skir- 
mish at  Restalrig,  232  ;  letter  to  the 
preachers,  233 ;  out-manrcuvred  by 
Leslie,  234 ;  retreats,  235 ;  taunts 
the  Scots  regarding  malignant  king, 
234,  235  note;  Dunbar,  237-242; 
occupies  Edinburgh,  243 ;  contro- 
verts the  preachers,  244  ;  Inverkeith- 
ing,  .253-254;  Worcester,  258;  pro- 
ceedings against  Parliament,  263, 
277  ;  proclaimed  Protector,  271  ; 
policy  towards  Remonstrators,  272  ; 
relations  with  Protesters,  277  ;  death 
of,  274,  277  ;  quoted,  429 ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  ii.  406;  iii.  115, 
190,   191,   195,  248,  255,  256. 

Cromwell,  Richard,  iii.  274. 

Crops,  destruction  of,  ii,  546. 

Crosier  of  St  Filan,  i.  76,  86. 

Crossraguel,  Commendator  of,  ii.  545. 

Crossrig,  Hume  of,  cited,  iv.  89,  99- 
100. 

Crown  pleas,  i.  150. 

Cruithni,  i.  14. 

Cubiculars,  ii.  402,  417. 

Culdees,  i.  26,  47,  58,  96,  97,  lOi. 

Cullen,  Capt.,  ii.  276. 

Culloden,  battle  of,  iv.   508-516,    523- 

525.  527-535- 

Culloden,  Duncan  Forbes  of,  anony- 
mous letter  attributed  to,  iv.  240- 
242 ;  Malt  tax  dispute,  359-363 ; 
advises  raising  Highland  regiments, 
435  ;  Lovat's  relations  with,  461, 
463  ;  flight  to  Skye,  502,  505  ;  treat- 
ment of,  by  Government,  521  ;  cited, 
i.  9,  20,  143,  iv.  412-413,  416; 
otherwise  mentioned,  104,  214,  395, 
433i  45S,  460. 

Culpepper,  iii.  207. 

Cumberland — 

Bruce's  truce  with,  i.  215. 
Cession  of,  to  .Scotland,  question  as 
to,  i.  48-49,  58. 

Cumberland,  Duke  of,  lands  from 
Flanders,  iv.  474  ;  takes  over 
Ligonier's  command,  478 ;  Clifton 
fight,  485-486 ;  reduces  Carlisle, 
487  ;  preparations  effected  during 
Charles's  retreat,  499  ;  burns  Linlith- 


558 


INDEX. 


gow  palace,  500 ;  forbids  quarter, 
504.  517.  519;  at  Nairn,  506;  Cul- 
loden,  509-515  ;  failure  of  policy  of, 
520-521  ;  brutalities  of,  470,  518- 
5I9>  531  ;  treatment  of  prisoners, 
502  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  425,  484. 

Cumbernauld,  Sir  Malcolm  Fleming  of, 
i.  300,  322-324. 

Cumbernauld  Band  (1640),  iii.  77,  85. 

Cumbria.     See  Strathclyde. 

Cunningham,  ii.  181. 

Cunningham  (Moderator),  iv.  33-34. 

Curwen  of  Workington,  iv.  206. 

Customs,  James  I.'s  dealings  with,  i. 
301,  315. 

Cuthbert,  St,  i.  33,  39,  70,  71,  157. 

Cyric,  King,  i.  43. 

Czerematoff,  Prince,  iv.  274. 

Dacre,  Thos.,  intrigues  with  Home,  i. 
395  ;  outfaces  Albany,  400-401  ;  at 
Jedburgh,  401-402  ;  intrigues  against 
Beaton,  404  -  406  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 379,  392,  396,  403,  454; 
ii.   9. 

Dairsie  Castle,  i.  252. 

Dairsie,    Learmonth    of,    i.   450,    452, 

505- 
Daigetty,  Hay  of,  iii.  230,  293. 

Dalgleish,    George,  ii.    175,   190,    208, 

563-    . 
Dalhousie  (1637),  iii.  27. 
Dalkeith  School,  iv.  395. 
Dalmeny,  Primrose  of  (170c),  iv.  72. 
Dalriada — 

.^thelfrith's  defeat  of,  i.  32,  39. 

Ancestry  of,  i.  14. 

Columban  monks  expelled  to,  i.  35- 

36. 

Kenneth    MacAlpine's   conquest   of, 

,  i-  36. 

Kingdom  of,  i.  28. 

Pictish  defeat  of,  i.  30. 

Religion  of,  i.  29. 

Settlement  of,  in  Kintyre,  i.  12,  27. 

Totemistic  traces  among,  i.  13. 

mentioned,  i.  23. 
Dairy,  Cheisley  of,  iii.  370 ;  iv.  6,  380. 
Dalrymple,    Sir   David,   iv.    no,    127, 

242. 
Dalrymple,  Sir  Hugh,  iv.  no. 
Dalrymple,  Sir  James.     See  Stair,  Vis. 
Dalrymple,  Sir  John  (1689).     ^'tftf  Stair, 

1st  Karl  of. 
Dalrym[)lc,  Sir  John  (1724),  iv.  358. 
Dalrymple,  Sir  John  (1788),  cited,  iv. 

61. 
Dalrymple,  Wm.,  ii.  543-544- 
Dalzicl.     See  Binns. 
Danes,  i.  91. 
Daniel,  Capt.,  iv.  477,  483,  518  ;  cited, 


481,  484,  487,  SOI,   505,   507,  518, 

524- 

Dantzic  affray  (1600),  ii.  552. 

Darien  colony  scheme,  iv.  59-61,  65-77, 
n6-n7,  132-133. 

Darnley,  Earl  of,  parentage  of,  i.  395, 
478 ;  English  scheme  regarding,  ii. 
135-137;  Mary's  passion  for,  135, 
138,  141;  at  Mary's  Court,  137; 
offends  Moray,  138,  140 ;  Mary 
betrothed  to,  139  ;  created  Earl  of 
Ross,  141  ;  unpopular,  ib.,  164-165, 
167-168;  plot  to  seize,  142-144; 
marriage  with  Mary  and  proclama- 
tion as  king,  146 ;  Moray's  designs 
on,  at  Hamilton,  150;  differences 
with  Mar}',  151  ;  diversions  of,  154  ; 
jealousy  of  Riccio,  158-160,  162; 
drunkenness,  159;  murder  of  Riccio, 
161 -162;  breach  with  Mary,  166, 
170;  intention  to  leave  the  country, 
167  - 168  ;  complains  of  Mary  to 
foreign  princes,  168  ;  joins  his  father, 
172,  173;  ill,  173;  at  Kirk-o'-Field, 
174-175  ;  murder  of,  I75-I77»  5^2; 
characteristics  of,  138 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  i.  392 ;  ii.  97,   133,   134, 

'49- 
Dartmouth,  Lord,  cited,  iii.  250. 
D'Aubigny,  Esme  Stuart.     See  Lennox. 
D'Aubigny,  Stewart  of  (1508),  i.  373. 
d'Aumale,  ii.  loi. 
d'Aussi,  i.  379. 
David  of  Huntingdon,  i.   112-113,115, 

^73- 

David  L,  King,  feudalism  introduced 
by,  i.  102,  131,  132;  judicial  ad- 
ministration by,  150  ;  reign  of,  102- 
108 ;  death  and  estimate  of,  109  ; 
mentioned,  99-101. 

David  n..  King,  birth  of,  i.  232; 
marriage,  233,  234 ;  coronation,  242  ; 
removed  to  France,  247,  249  ;  lands 
in  Kincardineshire  (1342),  255;  in- 
vades England,  256-257  ;  Neville's 
Cross,  257-258  ;  relations  with  the 
Steward,  258,  261,  263,  264  ;  ac- 
knowledges Edward's  paramountcy, 
259 ;  ransom  of,  259-260,  264-267, 
275;  quells  March's  rising  (1363), 
261  ;  marriage  with  Margaret  Logie, 
ib.  ;  projects  for  English  succession 
(1364),  261-264;  debts,  265,  266; 
divorces  Margaret  Logie,  266  ;  death 
and  estimate  of,  266-267. 

Davidson,  John,  career  of,  ii.  236 ; 
cited,  252,  253,  366,  367,  388  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  283,  284,  297, 
349.  353.  36S,  404-405.  473- 

Davison,  ii.  257,  304-305,  334-335- 

Dawick,  Veitch  of,  i.  416. 


INDEX. 


559 


de  Curosot,  Madame,  ii.  124. 

De  Foe,  iv.  129-131,  147,  150;  cited, 
no,  114,  115,  117-120,  122,  123, 
126-128,  132-135,   138-139,  141. 

De  Foix,  ii.  151,  152  ;  cited,   160. 

de  la  Hastie,  i.  392,  397,  504  ;  ii.  23. 

de  Lignerollcs,  ii.  191. 

de  Magny,  iv.  252. 

de  Moreville,  i.  loi,  136. 

De  Noailles,  ii.  96,  98. 

de  Prean.     See  Courcelles. 

de  Quadra,  ii.  93,  109,  123,  125,  126. 

De  Quincey  cited,  i.  499. 

de  Rubay,  ii.  23,  24. 

de  Selby,  Walter,  i.  257. 

de  Selve  cited,  ii.  8,  14,  20,  21,  24. 

de  Seton.     See  Seton. 

de  Silva,  ii.  152-153,  191,  192,  194, 
226,  564,  565. 

de  Stuteville,  Nicholas,  i.  112,  129. 

de  Tassis,  ii.  282,  293. 

De  Torcy,  iv,  93,  94,    168,    173,   176, 

179- 
de  Vega  cited,  ii.  325. 
de  Venale,  Robert,  i.  248. 
de  Vesci,  i.  112. 
de  Vic,  Henry,  cited,  iii.  66. 
de  Vypont,  Alan,  i.  249,  252. 
de  Wyzeva,  M.,  cited,  ii.  568. 
Deane,  iii.  262,  265, 
Death,  apparent,  recovery  from,  i.  70, 

86. 
D'Eguilles,  iv.  472,  473,   502  ;   cited, 

480,  501. 
Deira,  i.  28-29,  44- 
d'Elboeuf,  ii.  63,  loi,  108,  109. 
Democracy    and    toleration    mutually 

opposed  in  i6th  century,  ii.  425. 
Derneley,  Lord,  i.  329. 
Derneley,  Sir  John  Stewart  of,  i.  293- 

295.  307,  321- 
Derwentwater,    Earl   of,  iv.    195,   205, 

208,   210;    execution   of,    237,    239- 

240. 
Devil-tribute,  i.  497-498. 
D'P^wes  cited,  iii.  108. 
d'Eyncourt,  i.  220,  257. 
Dicaledones,  i.  9,  11. 
Dicconson,  iv.  233,  235. 

Dick,  Rev. ,  iii.  252. 

Dickson  cited,  i.  357. 

Dickson,  Provost,  of  Peebles,  ii.  542. 

Dickson,  Rev.  David,   iii.  44,   61,  85, 

183,  265,  283,  288,  322. 
Dillon,  Gen.,  iv.  225,  252,  256,   257, 

269,  270,  337-339.  349,  425  ;  "  Wild 

Geese  "  of,  275. 
Die  Cassius  cited,  i.  9-10. 
Dirleton  Castle,  ii.  449,  468. 
Divorce,  i.  427. 

Dochart,  Loch,  iii.  130  and  note. 
VOL.   IV. 


Donald,  King  (son  of  Constantine),  i. 

43- 
Donald,  King  (son  of  Kenneth),  i.  42. 
Donald  Ban,  King,  i.  55,  95,  97,  98, 

174. 
Donald  Ban  MacWilliam,  i.  115, 
Donald  Dhu,  i.  343. 
Donald  Dubh,  i,    371-372,  388,    398, 

417,  482-484,  507-509. 
Donald  MacIIeth,  i.  109-110. 
Donnelly,  W.  A.,  cited,  i.  85. 
d'Orleans,  Due  (Regent),  iv.  180,   181, 

185,  225,   226,  228,  233,  237,  252, 

262,  263,  342. 
d'Osel.     See  d'Oysel. 
Dougal,  Clan,  i.  119. 
Douglas,     House    of,     i.     151,     236 ; 

treachery  of,  332,  363-364;  ii.   158, 

160,  346. 
Douglas  (brother  of  Douglas  of  Fing- 

land),  iv.  205,  212. 
Douglas   (W.  S.),  cited,  iii.  235  nole, 

254  note. 
Douglas,  Bp. ,  ii,  465. 
Douglas,  Col.,  iv.  188,  245-246. 
Douglas,  Col.  (brother  of  Queensberry), 

iii,  383,  384,  414. 
Douglas,  Duke  of,  iv.  184,  356, 
Douglas,  1st  Earl  of  (William),  revolt 

of,  and  secret  agreement  with  David, 

i.  261-263  ;  death  of  277  ;  otherwise 

mentioned,  258-260,  276. 
Douglas,  2nd  Earl  of  (James),  i.  277- 

278,  282  ;  descendants  of,  297. 
Douglas,  3rd  Earl  of  (Archibald,  Lord 

of  Galloway),  i.  135,  276,  285,  297. 
Douglas,  4th  Earl  of  (Archibald  Tine- 
man  the  second),  implicated  in  death 

of  Rothesay,  i.  286-287,  298  ;  Hom- 

ildon  Hill,  287  ;  becomes  Henry  IV.'s 

man,  289  ;  supports  Henry  V.,  293  ; 

death  of,  295. 
Douglas,    5th  Earl   of  (Archibald),    i. 

293.  302,  311,   320-321. 
Douglas,  6th  Earl  of  (William),  i.  322- 

324,  354- 
Douglas,  7th  Earl  of  (James  the  Gross), 

i.  324. 
Douglas,  8th  Earl  of  (William),  i.  324- 

330. 
Douglas,  9th  Earl  of  (James),  intrigues 

of,  i.  330-331  ;  relations  with  Edward 

IV.,    331,    336-338,    344-345.   357; 

death  of,   347. 
Douglas,  Marquis  of  (1639),  iii.  53. 
Douglas,    Mr    (Professor    of    Oriental 

languages),  iv.  36. 
Douglas,  Provost,  of  Lincluden,  ii.  340. 
Douglas,  Andrew  (minister),  ii.  277. 
Douglas,  Archibald  (Tineman),  i.  244, 

246-249,  270,  503. 

2  N 


560 


INDEX. 


Douglas,  Archibald  (uncle  of  Angus), 
i.  413,  419. 

Douglas,  Archibald  (of  Whittingham), 
career  of,  ii.  238 ;  at  Darnley's 
murder,  176,  180,  272  ;  appointed 
to  Glasgow  parsonage,  238,  252,  iv. 
158;  imprisoned  and  released  by 
Morton,  ii.  241-242  ;  betrays  Morton, 
268 ;  flies  to  Berwick,  269 ;  forges 
letters  implicating  Lennox,  270-271  ; 
forfeited,  279 ;  treachery  of,  286, 
291  ;  suspected  by  Mary,  312,  313  ; 
Randolph's  efforts  for  return  of,  319  ; 
James  VI.  professes  friendship  for, 
320-321  ;  trial  of,  on  Darnley  murder 
case,  321,  337,  368;  acquitted,  572; 
James's  ambassador  to  England,  322- 
323.  337  ;  betrays  Mary,  325 ;  re- 
ports on  the  political  situation,  339 ; 
James's  attitude  towards,  340,  342, 
348  ;  supported  by  Elizabeth,  367  ; 
in  disgrace,  408 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, i.  460,  491  ;  ii.  228,  237,  267, 
290,  295,  298,  306,  314,  328,  366,  445. 

Douglas,  Catherine,  legend  of,  i.  313. 

Douglas,  David,  i.  323. 

Douglas,  Gawain,  Bp.,  i.  393,  394, 
399.  400,  420. 

Douglas,  George,  Bp.  of  Moray,  ii.  2, 
15S-161,  563. 

Douglas,  George  (brother  of  William 
Douglas  of  Lochleven),  ii.  195,  196, 
250,  266,  268,  283,  323. 

Douglas,  Sir  George  (brother  of  Angus), 
intrigues  of,  with  Home,  i.  395,  418  ; 
insolence  to  the  king,  410  ;  informs 
of  Solway  Moss,  454,  456 ;  restored  to 
estates  and  position,  459,  465  ;  arrests 
Beaton,  463-464  ;  releases  him,  466  ; 
baffles  Henry  VHI.,  468;  pledges 
loyalty  to  Arran,  475  ;  Henry's  re- 
ward for  trapping  of,  480 ;  urges 
murder  of  Beaton,  482 ;  appointed 
Privy  Councillor  by  Henry,  492 ; 
stultifies  efforts  of  Scottish  and 
French  forces,  482,  483  ;  promises 
protection  to  Wishart,  487  ;  treason 
of,  ii.  2,  8,  II,  32;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 411,  413,  419,  433.  462,  477, 

479.  484.  491- 
Douglas,  James  (Master  of  the  Michael), 

i.  345.  35'^- 
Douglas,  Lord  James  ("the  Good'), 
with  Bruce,  i.  204,  205,  208-209, 
211,  212;  at  Loch  Awe,  214;  at 
Carlisle,  215;  at  Bannnckburn,  218- 
222  ;  rai<ls  in  north  of  England,  225- 
226,  229;  "the  Black  Douglas," 
226;  Byland,  231;  killed  by  the 
Moors,  236 ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
182,  201,   216,   228,  232-233,   235. 


Douglas,  John,  Abp.  of  St  Andrews,  ii. 

238,  241. 
Douglas,  Robert   (preacher),    iii.    105, 

268,    271,   292,    318;    relations  and 

correspondence  with  Sharp,  283-286, 

288-289. 
Douglas,  Thos.  (spy),  ii.  472. 
Douglas,  William  (son  of  Lord  James 

Douglas),  i.  248,  249,  270. 
Douglas,  Wm.,  Knight  of  Liddesdale. 

See  Liddesdale. 
Douglas,    Wm.    (foundling),    ii.     196, 

250. 
Douglas,    Sir    Wm.    (Commander    at 

Berwick),  i.    177-178,    181-182. 
Douglas,  Sir  Wm.  (Sheriff  of  Teviot- 

dale),  iii.  68,  69,  72. 
"Douglas  Larder,"  the,  i.  210. 
Douglas  of  Loch  Leven.     See  Morton, 

8th  Earl  of. 
Douglas   of    Parkhead,    Whittingham, 

&c.       See   Parkhead,    Whittingham, 

&c. 
Dowart,  Maclean  of  (1504-23),  i.  371, 

397-398,  417,  419,  508. 
Dowart  (Duarl),  Maclean  of  (1545),  i. 

482,  483,  509. 
Dowart,  Sir  Hector  Maclean  of  (1651), 

iii.  254. 
Dowart,   Sir  John  Maclean  of  (17 15), 

iv.   196. 
Dowart  (Duart),  Lauchlan  Maclean  of 

(1591-98),   in  "the  great  band,"  ii. 

356 ;     at     Glenrinnes,     391,     392  ; 

supported   by   Argyll,    397  ;    in   the 

Kirk  tumult,  418  ;  Elizabeth  desires 

aid  from,  434 ;    death  of,  436 ;    re- 
ligion of,  525. 
Dowart  Castle,  iii.  268,  270. 
Dowden,  Dr,  cited,  i.  96. 
D'Oysel,     Protestant    terms    with,    in 

Perth,   ii.   52 ;    occupies   Leith,    58 ; 

refuses  massacre  of  Protestants,  67  ; 

report  of,  to  Mary  and  Francis,  71  ; 

otherwise  mentioned,  6,  13,  24,  35, 

49,   55,  66,  98-99. 
Drake,  Sir  F.,  ii.  339. 
Dress — 

Early  Pictish,  i.  60. 

Extravagance  in,  i.  69. 

Fifteenth  century,  in,  i.  307. 

Highland.     See  under  Highlands. 

Medieval,  i.  156. 
Drink  traffic,  ii.  530,  536. 
Drinks,  i.  155. 
Druid,  i.  23-24,  31,  73. 
Drum,  Gordon  of,  iii.  115-I16. 
Drumc.iirn,  Hamilton  of.     See  Melrose. 
Druml.inrig  (1568),  ii.  197. 
Drumlanrig,  Douglas  of  (i543)'  ••  5°8. 
Drumlanrig,  Lord  (1639),  iii.  61. 


INDEX. 


561 


Drummond,    Abbot    of   Inchafrny,    ii. 

449,  450.  455- 
Drumtnond,  Capt.,  iv.  42,  45,  70,  102, 

104. 

Drummond,  Lieut. -Gen.,  iii.  394,  407. 

Driimmond,  ist  Lord  (1487),  i.  349. 

Dnimmond,  2nd  Lord  (1543),  i.  478. 

Drummond,  Lord  (1644),  iii.  78,  121. 

Drummond,  Lord  (1715),  iv.  117,  137, 
143,  216-217. 

Drummond,  Sir  Edward,  ii.  502-503. 

Drummond,  Lord  George,  iv.  518. 

Drummond,  Lord  John,  attempt  by, 
on  Edinburgh  Castle,  iv.  182  ;  com- 
mands cavalry  (1715),  191,  199;  at 
feud  with  Balhaldy,  436,  440  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  446,  476,  482,  486, 

491.  492.  501.  506. 
Drummond,    Lady   Margaret,    i.    362, 

387.  .,    .. 

Drummond,  Rev.  Patrick,  iii.  291. 

Drummond,  Wm.  (Macgregor).  See 
Balhaldy. 

Drumquhassel,  Cuningham  of,  ii.  235, 
261,  262,  265,  267. 

Drumquhassel,  Stewart  of,  ii.  304. 

Drury  (English  leader),  leads  English 
forces  with  Lennox,  ii.  229,  230;  on 
Lennox,  237  ;  Edinburgh  Castle  sur- 
renders to,  249  ;  cited,  176,  184  and 
note,  186,  187,  195,  240,  251,  563. 

Drury,  Robert,  cited,  iv.  104. 

Dryburgh  Abbey,  i.  158,  231,  483. 

du  Bartas,  ii.  338. 

du  Carry,  Major,  iv.  392. 

du  Croc,  ii.  172,  173,  186,  190,  199, 
564,  565  ;  cited,  187. 

Dubois,  Abb^,  iv.  338. 

Ducal  titles,  first  examples  of,  i.  298. 

Duchray,  Graham  of,  iii.  274. 

Dudhope,  iii.  246. 

Dudley,  Sir  Andrew,  ii.  12. 

Dudley,  Lord  Robert.     See  Leicester. 

Duff,  King,  i.  50. 

Dumas  cited,  ii.  17, 

Dumbarton  Castle,  i.  362  ;  ii.  235. 

Dumbuck  Stones,  i.  85. 

Dumnonii,  i.  9. 

Dun,  Lord,  iv.  332,  382. 

Dun,  Erskine  of,  Knox's  relation  with, 
ii.  29-30  ;  approves  French  marriage, 
37-38  ;  negotiations  with  Queen 
Regent  as  to  summoning  of  preachers, 
47-50 ;  Superintendent  for  the  Con- 
gregation, 73  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
i.  474,  484  ;  ii.  220. 

Dunavertie  Castle,  iii.  183-184  ami  nole. 

Dunbar  (Cavalier,  1691),  iv.  46-47. 

Dunbar  (poet),  i.  366,  373,  3S5. 

Dunbar,  Al)p.  of  CJlasgow,  i.  448. 

Dunbar,  Earl  of  (Sir  George  Hume), 


disliked  by  the  Queen,  ii.  473,  475, 
484,  485,  493,  502-504,  569-570, 
572  ;  death  of,  504 ;  estimate  of, 
480,  504  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  373, 
488,  492. 

Dunbar,  P2arl  of  (James  Murray),  proxy 
wedded  to  Princess  Clementina,  iv. 
277  ;  James's  Minister,  335,  347 ; 
Governor  to  Prince  Charles,  349- 
359>  352,  354.  422,  426  ;  Lockhart's 
estimate  of,  354 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  181,   191,  261,  336-337. 

Dunbar,  Gavin,  Bp.  of  Aberdeen,  i. 
428. 

Dunbar,  Patrick  of,  i.  178,  186-187. 

Dunblane,  Bp.  of  (Abbot  of  Inchafray), 
i.  222,  249. 

Dunbuie  Stones,  i.  85. 

Duncan,  Bp.,  iv.  333,  334. 

Duncan,  King  (grandson  of  Malcolm 
IL),  i.   53-54,  58. 

Duncan,  King  (son  of  Malcolm  Can- 
more),  i.   55,  90,  91,  97-98. 

Duncanson,  Major,  iv.  44,  54. 

Dundas,  iii.  244,  249. 

Dundas  of  Dundas,  i.  326. 

Dundee — 

Monk's  storm  of,  iii.  256-257. 
Montrose's  capture  of,  iii.  137-138. 

Dundee,  Viscount  (John  Graham  of 
Claverhouse),  early  career  of,  iii. 
334-335  ;  harries  conventiclers,  344  ; 
at  Drumclog,  346  ;  repulses  Coven- 
anters at  Glasgow,  347  ;  at  Bothwell 
Bridge,  351-352  ;  severities  against 
the  Kirk,  ii.  360,  iii.  364  ;  condemns 
Argyll,  368-369;  share  of  forfeited 
estates,  356 ;  succeeds  Kenmuir  in 
jurisdiction,  370  ;  in  Galloway  (1682), 
370-372  ;  relations  with  Dalrymples, 
373,  iv.  46 ;  on  the  Privy  Council, 
iii.  374 ;  marriage  with  Lady  Jane 
Cochrane,  376  ;  constable  at  Dundee, 
377  ;  deprecates  extremes  of  repres- 
sion, 381-382;  breach  with  Queens- 
berry,  383,  394  ;  dismissed  from 
Council,  383 ;  shooting  of  John 
Brown,  386,  392-393  ;  aftair  of  John 
Brownen,  393-394  ;  promise  to  Wil- 
liam of  Orange,  414  ;  loyalty  to 
James,  ib.,  419-420;  made  Viscount, 
414  ;  rides  nortli,  421  ;  movements 
in  the  Highlands,  iv.  6-10 ;  disbands 
Highland  levies,  1 1  ;  craves  rein- 
forcements, 13  ;  letters  to  Lord 
Murray,  14- 15;  Killiecrankie,  16- 
20;  death  of,  20-21  ;  policy  of,  iii, 
371.  374  ;.  humanity  of,  377;  other- 
wise mentioned,  i.  211  ;  iii.  336-337, 
354-355,  382,  408,  413-. 

Dundee,  Viscount  (1745),  iv,  472, 


562 


INDEX. 


DunduflF,  Laird  of,  ii.  543. 

Dunfermline,  vandalism  of  Reformers 
at,  i.  235-236. 

Dunfermline,  Earl  of  (1639-42),  Royal 
Commissioner  of  General  Assembly 
(1642),  iii.  102  ;  leads  Scottish  rebels, 
112;  otherwise  mentioned,  62,  63, 
66,  68,  70,  76,  173,  177. 

Dunfermline,  Earl  of  (1689),  iv.  20. 

Dunfermline,  Lord  (Alex.  Seton,  Lord 
Urquhart),  promotion  of,  ii.  398 ;  an 
Octavian,  402 ;  on  Huntly's  return, 
410  ;  summoned  by  preachers,  411  ; 
on  Black's  case,  416  ;  defies  the  king, 
438 ;  ruling  in  James's  absence  ( 1 603), 
480 ;  trial  of  the  preachers,  487  ;  a 
secret  Catholic,  495  ;  treasurer,  504  ; 
Auchendrane  case,  545  ;  death  and 
estimate  of,  517. 

Dunfermline  Register  cited,  i.  130,  190. 

Dunkeld — 

Importance  of,  i.  143. 
Religious  centre  at,  i.  36,  42,  57. 

Dunlop  cited,  iv.  158. 

Dunluce,  Sir  James  Macdonald  of,  ii. 

434-437,  507,  526,  539.  534-535.  537- 

Dunmore,  Lord,  cited,  iv.  469. 

Dunnottar  Castle,  iii.  261. 

Duntreath,  Edmonstone  of,  i.  304. 

Dunyveg  (Duniveg)  Castle — 

Colkitto's  exploits  at,  ii.  533-534- 
James  VI. 's  dealings  with,  ii.    526, 

529,  531.  533- 
Massacre  by  Covenanters  at,  iii.  184. 

Dunyveg,  Macdonald  of,  ii.  435. 

Duplin,  Lord,  iv.  no. 

Dupplin,  i.  244-245,  269. 

Durham — 

Battle  of  (Neville's   Cross),  i.   257- 

258. 
Bruce's  sack  of,  i.  215. 
Malcolm  II.  defeated  at,  i.  52. 

Durie,  John  (preacher),  ii.  268,  272, 
283,  284,  294,  295. 

Durward,  Allan,  i.  123. 

Dutton,  Gabriel,  cited,  iv.  238. 

Dykes  (preacher),  ii.  438-439. 

Dysart,  ist  Earl  of  (Will  Murray),  sus- 
pected, iii.  33,  81  ;  "The  Incident," 
95-99;  created  Earl,  iii;  arrested, 
168  ;  in  Holland,  206-207  >  quesiinn 
as  to  negotiations  with,  for  Mon- 
trose's safety,  222-226;  otherwise 
mentioned,    167,  229. 

Dysart,  Lady,  iii.  320. 

Eadgar,  King,  i.  98-99. 

Eadgar,  King  of  England,  i.  50-51,  498- 

499- 
E.iflgar  /Etheling,  i.  9093,  98. 
Eadgyth  (Matilda),  i.  99,  128. 


Eadmer,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews,  i.  100. 
Eadmund,  King  of  England,  i.  48. 
Eadmund,  King  of  Lothian,  i.  98. 
Eadred,  King  of  England,  i.  49. 
Eadulf  Cudel,  i.  50,  53. 
Eadward  the  Elder,  King  of  England, 

i.  45,  197,  497. 
Eadwine,  King,  i.  32. 
Eanfrid,  i.  32,  33. 
Earl  Marischal,  office  of,  i.  154. 
Earls,    position    of   ("the    seven"),   i. 

151-152,   167. 
Earlstoun,  Gordon  of  (1638),  iii.  47. 
Earlstoun,  Gordon  of  (1682),  iii.  372, 

375- 
Earlstoun,  Gordon  of  (1743),  iv.  441. 
Earth  houses,  i.  64-65. 
East  India  Co.  and  Darien  Colony,  iv. 

59-72,  73-77,  101-102,  I16-I17,  132- 

133-  .        ,  .. 

Easter  Wemyss,  Laird  of,  ii.  447. 
Echersberg,  Baron,  iv.  274. 
Eckatt,  Cunningham   of,  iv.   129-132  ; 

cited,  126. 
Eclipses,  ii.  430-431. 
Edgar  (1530),  i.  416. 
Edgar,  James,  iv.  343,  438  ;  cited,  425, 
Edgcombe,  Sir  Richard,  i.  348. 
Edinburgh — 

Advocates'  Library,  iv.  397. 

Balliol's  parliament  at  (1333-34),  L 
249. 

Burning  of,  i.  477. 

Court  of  The  Fifteen,  i,  450. 

Eadgar's  Seat,  i.  99. 

Filth  of,  in  i6th  century,  ii.  550;  in 
17th,  iii.  19;  in  l8th,  iv.  372  ;  re- 
formed by  English  (1651),  iii.  260- 
264. 

Holyrood  Abbey,  ii.  il. 

Holyrood  Chapel,  i.  158. 

Indulfs  seizure  of,  i.  49. 

Mary  Stuart's  entry  into,  ii.  107. 

Panic  in  (1745),  iv.  465. 

Pictish,  i.  28 ;  Pictish  name  for,  29, 

32. 
Randolph's  capture  of,  i.  216. 
Riots  in — 

Artisans  and  burgesses  at  strife,  ii. 

285. 
"Cleanse  the  Causeway,"  i.  399, 

429,  504. 
Four  in  one  day  (July  3,  1639),  iiL 

66. 
French,  with,  ii.  13-14. 
Kirk  riot  (1596),  ii.  418-419. 
Ogilvie  alTr.-iy  (1562),  ii.  116. 
Porteous  riot,  iv.  428-433. 
Protestant  mob  (1559),  ii.  56. 
St  Giles'  Church,  in  (1637),  iii.  26- 

27- 


INDEX. 


563 


School  affray  (1594).  i'-  397- 
Union     with     England,     against 
(1706),  iv.   1 20- 1 2 1. 
Royal  College  of  Surgeons  instituted, 

i.  385. 
St  Giles'  Church- 
Condition  of  (1627),  iii.  25. 

Image   stolen   from,   ii.   36 ;    new 
image  broken,  44. 

Partition  walls  abolished,  iii.  22. 

Riot  in  (1637),  iii.  26-27. 

Treasure  of,  sold  by  town  council, 
ii.  46. 
St  Margaret's  death  at,  i.  95,  126. 
Sheriffdom  created,  i.  345. 
Wall  built,  i.  392. 
Edinburgh  Castle — 

Charles's  attempt  on  (1745),  iv.  472. 
Davison's  plot  to  seize,  ii.  304,  306. 
Drummond's  attempt  on  (17 15),  iv. 

1S2-183. 
Lennox's   siege    of   (1571),    ii-    236, 

240-242;     betrayal    by    Balfour, 

248 ;  surrender,  249. 
Liddesdale's  capture  of,  i.  254-255, 

271. 
Randolph's  capture  of,  i.  216. 
Edinburgh      University,      professorial 

chairs  at,  iv.  403-404. 
Education — 

Dramatic    representations,    iv.    398- 

399. 
Greek,  study  of,  ii.  83  ;  iv.  398-402. 
James  IV. 's  interest  in,  i.  384. 
Knox's  provisions  for,  ii.  83. 
Latin,  study  of,  ii.  83  ;  iv,  393,  396 

398-401. 
Mediaeval,  i.  156-157. 
Ministers'  care  for,  ii.  377. 
Neglect   of,    after    Reformation,   iv. 

393;  in  1 8th  century,  405. 
Schoolhouses,  iv.  394. 
Teachers  and  their  salaries,  iv.  393- 

395- 
Universities.      See    that    title ;    also 

names  of  places. 
Edward  Balliol,  King,  recalled  by  Ed- 
ward II.  of  England,  i.  232  ;  at 
Edward  III.'s  court,  243;  Dupplin, 
244-245,  502  ;  crowned  king,  246 ; 
homage  to  Edward  III.,  ib.,  249, 
250  ;  surprise  in  Annan  and  flight  to 
Carlisle,  246  ;  troubles  with  his  allies, 
250-251,  503 ;  devastates  central 
Scotland,  252  ;  in  command  of  N. 
England,  254,  256  ;  Liddesdale's  re- 
lations with,  256  ;  resigns  his  crown 
to  Edward  III.,  259-260;  otherwise 
mentioned,  147,  198,  260,  271. 
Edward  the  Confessor,  King  of  Eng- 
land, i.  54-55. 


Edward  I.,  King  of  England,  Alex- 
ander's homage  to,  i.  123,  170; 
paramountcy  claim  of,  130,  160,  164- 
165,  168-169,  171  ;  policy  on  death 
of  Alexander  III.,  164- 167  ;  Scottish 
claims  to  tlirone  settled  by,  172,  174- 
175  ;  relations  with  Balliol,  175-177  ; 
relations  with  France,  176-177,  185, 
188;  war  with  Balliol,  177-178; 
nobles'  submission  to,  178;  Sc<jttish 
relics  looted  by,  ib.,  191  ;  Stirling 
burgesses'  oaths,  162  ;  petty  crime  in 
army  of,  179  ;  summons  Scottish 
nobles,  185  ;  relations  with  English 
nobles,  ib.,  186,  188,  189;  with 
Bruce,  186,  188-189,  191-193,  200, 
202;  battle  of  Falkirk,  186-187; 
marriage  to  sister  of  French  king, 
188;  Pope's  letter  to,  190-191,  199; 
Scotland  at  feet  of,  193 ;  siege  of 
Stirling,  ib.  ;  clemency,  194  ;  offers 
reward  for  Wallace,  ib.  ;  after  the 
war,  200-201  ;  prepares  expedition 
against  Scotland  (1306),  204-205 ; 
incensed  with  Bruce,  205  -  206  ; 
punishments  on  Scottish  leaders, 
206-208;  at  Lanercost,  210;  death 
of,  211  ;  characteristics  of,  170,  175- 
176,   186;  otherwise  mentioned,  123, 

155.  159- 

Edward  II.,  King  of  England,  i.  192, 
212-217,  220-223,  229,  231-232. 

Edward  III.,  King  of  England,  against 
Douglas  and  Randolph,  i.  232-233 ; 
relations  with  Balliol,  243  ;  Balliol's 
homage,  246,  249,  250  ;  seizes  Isle 
of  Man,  247  ;  siege  of  Berwick,  247- 
249;  devastates  Scotland,  251-252; 
rescues  Lady  Atholl,  253  ;  claims 
France,  253,  266 ;  besieges  Calais, 
256 ;  David's  homage,  259 ;  the 
Burned  Candlemas,  260 ;  increases 
demands  on  Scotland,  265  ;  in  Scot- 
land (1335),  503, 

Edward  IV.,  King  of  England,  i.  332, 

336,  338.  342,  344-346,  357.  358. 
Edward  VI.,  King  of  England,  ii.  17  ; 

second  prayer-book   of,   26,   28,   38, 

57.  80. 
Egfrith,  King,  i.  36. 
Egil  Skalagiim,  i.  47. 
Eglintoun,*Earl  of  (1571-1593),  ii.  237, 

242,  280,  367. 
Eglintoun,  Earl  of  (1645),  "'•  I53>  188, 

195,   198. 
Eglintoun,  Earl  of  (1685),  iii.  391. 
Eglintoun,  Earl  of  (17 10),  iv.  154. 
Eglintoun,  Karl  of  (1725),  iv.  352,  356. 
Eglintoun  (1747),  iv.  522. 
Eilean  na  Naoimh,  i.  68. 
Elcho,  Lord  (1644),  iii.  27,    122,  195. 


564 


INDEX. 


Elcho,  Lord  (1845),  replies  to  Edin- 
burgh deputation,  iv.  466  ;  estimates 
of,  451-452;  cited,  426,  464,  517; 
otherwise  mentioned,  447,  467,  478, 
518. 

Eleanor,  Queen  of  England,  i.  167. 

Elgin  Cathedral,  i.  284  ;  iii.  90. 

Elibank,  Gideon  Murray  of,  iv.  117. 

Eliot,  Sir  John,  iii.  6,  10. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  Bohemia,  ii.  412, 
506,  516  ;  iii.  210. 

Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England,  project 
for  marriage  of,  with  Arran,  i.  468- 
469,  ii.  57;  attitude  towards  Scottish 
Protestants,  58 ;  secretly  supports 
them,  60,  62,  68  ;  accepts  realm  of 
Scotland,  63  ;  relations  with  Dudley, 
64.  93,  135  ;  treaty  of  Edinburgh, 
68 ;  angry  with  Mary,  94 ;  refuses 
Arran,  95  ;  on  proposals  for  Mary's 
marriage,  97  ;  offers  to  meet  Mary, 
98  ;  refuses  to  acknowledge  her  as 
heir,  99,  107;  favours  Guises,  114; 
amicable  negotiations  with  Mary, 
115;  refuses  interview,  ib.;  ill  of 
smallpox,  123  ;  proposes  Dudley  for 
Mary's  hand,  125,  130,  133,  135-137, 
139  ;  proposes  return  of  Lennox,  129  ; 
waverings  as  to  Lennox,  ib.,  1 33- 1 34  ; 
silences  a  preacher,  132,  139;  the 
Darnley  scheme,  135-137,  139;  pro- 
mises help  to  Scottish  Protestants, 
135,  142,  143  ;  appealed  to  for/3000, 
145  ;  remonstrates  with  Mary,  148  ; 
sends  aid  to  Protestant  rebels  and 
denies  doing  so,  148,  151  ;  slanders 
Mary,  149  ;  interview  with  Moray, 
152-154;  on  birth  of  Mary's  son, 
165  ;  attitude  to  Mary  after  Car- 
berry,  190;  on  casket  letters,  191, 
288,  564  ;  entreated  by  Mary  for  aid, 
196  ;  policy  of  detaining  her  a 
prisoner,  197-198,  201,  209;  refuses 
her  an  interview,  198-199,  209; 
promises  her  restoration,  199-200; 
transfers  her  case  to  London,  204  ; 
interview  with  her  commissioners, 
206  ;  refuses  her  a  public  hearing, 
204,  206;  threatens  her,  213-214  ; 
schemes  against  d'Aubigny,  216,  218  ; 
schemes  for  Mary's  release,  217-218, 
223  ;  tries  to  stop  execution  of  Paris, 
221  ;  upbraids  Moray  anent  Perth 
Assembly,  ib.  ;  discovers  Norfolk 
marriage  project,  222 ;  vacillations, 
229-230;  Anjou  marriage  project, 
'^Z'St  234  ;  delays  helping  Lennox, 
237  ;  in  league  with  France,  242  ; 
intrigue  for  Mary's  execution,  242- 
243 ;  assists  Morton,  24S ;  spares 
Sir  Robert  Melville,  250  ;    Alen9on 


marriage  project,  257 ;  knowledge 
of  Mary's  plots,  263  ;  efforts  for  the 
Hamiltons,  264-266  ;  deserts  Morton, 
254,  268  ;  efforts  on  Morton's  behalf, 
270 ;  supplies  Angus  with  money, 
284 ;  complains  of  Lennox,  286 ; 
parsimony  to  the  Ruthven  lords,  287, 
289-291  ;  cat-and-mouse  policy  with 
Mary,  289,  291,  311-312,  322  ;  policy 
as  to  Mary  and  James,  289  ;  Throck- 
morton plot  against,  303  ;  parsimony 
to  James,  321,  394,  478  ;  seeks  league 
with  Scotland,  313;  the  Babington 
plot,  319-323  ;  urges  Mary's  assas- 
sination, 320,  327  ;  interviews  with 
Scottish  ambassadors  for  Mary's  life, 
325-327;  ruins  Davison,  334-335; 
fears  of  James,  335  ;  false  promises 
to  him,  342  ;  remonstrates  with  him 
on  the  Huntly  plot,  343  ;  complains 
of  the  preachers,  350 ;  patronises 
Bothwell,  362,  365  ;  Robert  Mel- 
ville's mission  to,  367 ;  relations  with 
Scottish  Catholics,  375-376,  381,  382; 
throws  over  Bothwell,  376 ;  com- 
plaints of  James,  403,  408 ;  Buc- 
cleuch's  interviews  with,  408  and 
note;  Black's  references  to,  412; 
seeks  aid  from  .Maclean,  434  ;  on  the 
Gowrie  conspiracy,  464-465;  im- 
proved relations  with  James,  475 ; 
death  of,  477  ;  creed  of,  109;  cruelty 
of,  290 ;  falseness  of,  365,  376,  389 
tiote ;  otherwise  mentioned,  56,  62, 
142,   260,  279,  435,  438,  446,  471, 

503. 
Elliot,  Mr  (agent  of  Stair),  iv.  222,  246. 
Elliot,  Sir  Gilbert,  iv.  42. 
Elliot,  Martin,  ii.  224. 
Elliots,  ii.  24,  166. 
Elphinstone,  Bp.,  i.  375,  3S4,  393,  424  ; 

cited,  344. 
Elphinstone,  James,   of  Innernaughty. 

See  Balmerino. 
Elphinstone,  Nicholas,  ii.  225,  242. 
Elphinstone,  Sir  Wm.,  iii.  66. 
Eltham,  John  of  (Earl  of  Cornwall), 

i-  503- 
Elton  cited,  i.  501. 
ElwoUl,  John,  i.  296. 
Emigration    and    expatriation    due    to 

poverty,   iv.  58,    109. 
English  Chronicle  cited,  i.  45,  53  ;  not 

cited  at  Norham,  169. 
English  element  in  Scotland,  i.  32,  33, 

37.  52..  63. 
English  intrusion,  i.  99. 
English  law,  barbarities  of,  i.  2 1 2-2 1 3. 
English  succession  to  Scottish   throne, 

David  II.'s  plans  for,   i.   261-264. 
Eocha,  King,  i.  43. 


INDEX. 


565 


Episcopalian  Church — 
Abjuration  oath,  iv.  237. 
Bishops  without  sees,  iv.  326. 
Deposition  of  clergy  by  George  I.,  iv. 

327. 
fractions  in,  iv.  332-335. 
Laud's  Prayer  Book,  iv.  327,  331. 
Remonstrance    to  James   VIII.,   iv. 

333- 
Ritual  controversy,  iv.  329  et  seq. 

Trustees,  iv.  32S. 

"  Usages,"  the,  iv.  329  et  seq. 
Episcopalians — 

James  VIII.  addressed  by  Aberdeen- 
shire diocese,  iv.  226. 

Position  of  (1694),  iv.  50. 

Toleration  for,  demanded  by  Lock- 
hart,  iv.   153,   156. 

Union    with    England,    attitude    to- 
wards, iv.   118. 
Erasmus,  i.  423-424>  428,  43°.  432- 
Ergadia,  Alexander  de,  i.  495. 
Eric,  King  of  Norway,  i.  124,  164. 
Errol,  Sir  Gilbert  Hay  of  (1306),  i.  205. 
Errol,  1st  Earl  of  (Wm.  Hay),  i.  302, 

33°- 
Errol,  Earl  of  (1488),  i.  350. 

Errol,  4th  Earl  of,  i.  379. 

Errol,  Earl  of  (1560),  ii.  71,  I42. 

Errol,  8th  Earl  of,  plot  of,  discovered, 
ii.  343  ;  enmity  with  Maiiland,  344  ; 
denounced  outlaw,  345  ;  makes  his 
submission,  348  ;  the  Spanish  Blanks, 
363  ;  trial  for  Spanish  Blanks  affair, 
380-382;  forfeited,  388:  at  Glen- 
rinnes,  392 ;  leaves  Scotland,  395  ; 
submission  to  the  Kirk,  429-430,  476 ; 
imprisonment  of,  494 ;  mentioned, 
419. 

Errol,  I2th  Earl  of,  iv.  117-118,  122, 
133,  137,   182. 

Errol,  Lady,  iv.  138,  142. 

Erskine,  Col.,  iv.  289,  291. 

Erskine,  Lord  (Robert)  (1434),  i.  311. 

Erskine,  Lord  (1488),  i.  350. 

Erskine,  Lord  (1556).     See  Mar. 

Erskine,  Lord  (1617),  ii.  554. 

Erskine,  Lord  (1640),  iii.  78. 

Erskine,  Lord  (1726),  iv.  334. 

Erskine,  Alexander,  ii.  260-261,  304, 
308,  309. 

Erskine,  Sir  Alexander,  iv.  184. 

Erskine,  Arthur,  ii.  161,  163,  250. 

Erskine,  Sir  Charles,  of  Alva,  iv.  197, 
256. 

Erskine,  Rev.  Ebenezer,  in  Synod  of 
Perth,  and  Secession,  iv.  298-305, 
315-316;  correspondence  with  Wliite- 
field,  316-317;  quarrel  about  the 
Burgess  Oath,  319-321  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  286,  295,  476. 


Erskine,  Rev.  Henry,  iii.  357. 
Erskine,    Hon.    James.      See  Grange, 

Lord. 
Erskine,  Rev.  John,  iv.  321. 
Erskine,  Sir  John,  iv.  212,  226,  228, 

256-258,  332. 
Erskine,   Margaret    (Lady    Douglas   of 

Loch  Leven),  i.  438,  440,  441. 
Erskine,  Rev.  Ralph,  iv.  286,  293-294, 

299,  301.  316-317,  321- 
Erskine,  Robert,  i.  462. 
Erskine,  Dr  Robert,  iv.  256-258. 
Erskine,  Hon.  Stuart,  iv.   343  ;  cited, 

280,  344,  345,  364. 
Erskine,  Thos.,  i.  450,  464-465,  505. 
Erskine,   Sir  Thos.,  ii.  452-453,  456, 

468,  473,  475. 
Erskine  of  Dun.     See  Dun. 
Espec,  Walter,  i.  103,  105,  107,  126. 
Essex,  Earl  of  (1598),  Colville  the  spy 

of,  ii.  448  ;  fall  of,  470-471  ;  "  Null- 
ity"  case  of,  488  ;   otherwise   men- 
tioned, 443,  465. 
Essex,  Earl  of  (1639),  iii.  52. 
Ethne  the  Fair,  i.  22-23. 
Ethnological  divisions  (6th  century),  i. 

28,  30. 
Ettrick  forest,  i.  63  ;  archers  of,  with 

Wallace,   186- 1 87. 
Euphemia,     daughter     of     Alexander 

Leslie,  i.   291. 
Eure,  Sir  Ralf,  i.  479-481. 
Eure,  Sir  Wm.,  i.  451. 
Evandale,  Lord,  i.  344,  345. 
Evil  eye,  i.  408. 
Ewald  cited,  iv.  464. 
Ewen,  lord  of  Argyll,  i.  122. 
Excommunication — 

Bishops,  of,  ii.  491,  506  ;  iii.  38-39. 

Bishops'  ratification  necessary  for,  ii. 
493  ;  iii.  38. 

Catholic  nobles,  of  (1593),  ii.  379. 

Civil  penalties  of,  i.  423 ;  extinction 
of  (1690),  iv.  31-32. 

English  abolition  of  (1651),  iii.  264. 

Family  divisions  by,  iv.  321. 

Humiliations  entailed  Viy,  iv.  160. 

King,  of  the,  i.  179  ;  ii.  362. 

Kirk's  claims  as  to,  ii.  277,  318;  iv. 
320. 

Magistrates,  of,  ii.  434. 
Exogamy,  i.  29,  38. 
Exports,  restrictions  on,  ii.  554,  556. 

P'airfax,  iii.  173,  232. 
Fairfoul,  Abp.  of  Glasgow,  iii.  299. 
Prairies,  i.  23-24,  65,  154,  495. 
Fairs,  i.  145. 
Fala  Moor,  i.  453. 

Falaise,  Treaty  of,  i.  113,  129  ;  abroga- 
tion of,  116,  170. 


566 


INDEX. 


Falconer,  Bp.,  iv.  326,  327,  329,  330. 
Faldonside,   Andrew   Ker  of,  ii.    129, 

160,   197,  286,  364. 
Falkirk,  battles  of  (1298),  i.    186-187, 

198;  (1746),  iv.  492-495- 
Falkland,  ii.  449. 
Farquhar,  Lieut.  Francis,  iv.  54. 
Farquharson,    Donald,    iii.    129    note, 

137,   144- 
Fassifern,  Cameron  of,  i.  444,  457  ;  iv. 

520, 
Fast  Castle,  i.  290 ;  ii.  457,  464. 
Fenelon,  La  Mothe,  ii.  205,  217,  225, 

234,  240,  289-290 ;  cited,  228,  229. 
Fergus  ^lacerc,  i.  29,  66. 
Ferguson,  Col.,  iv.  74. 
Ferguson    the    Plotter,    iii.    375,    378, 

380 ;  iv.  27,  96. 
Fergusson  cited,  i.  497. 
Ferniehirst,  Kers  of,  i.  408,  415,  480, 

481  ;  ii.  224,  237,  280,  2S6. 
Ferrerius  cited,  i.  343,  348,  351,  356, 

359,  507. 
Ferrers,  i.  245. 

Ferrier,  Professor,  iv.  401, 
Feudalism — 

Abuses  of,  i.  428. 

Aids  in,  i.  138. 

Anarchy  and  outrage  under,  i.  255. 

Army  under,  i._  153-154. 

Burghs  under,  i.  142. 

Commendation,  i.  148. 

Compurgation,  i.  149. 

David    L's  introduction   of,  i.   102, 

131:132. 
Exactions  under,  i.  161. 
Familiarity  of  principle  of,  in  Scot- 
land, i.    131,   134-135- 
Judicial  administration  under,  i.  I48- 

152. 
Life  under,  i.  156. 
Meaning  of,  i.  132-133. 
Revenue  under,  i.  153. 
Services  in,  i.  133,  134,  138. 
Society  under,  i.  154. 
Written  for  unwritten,  i.  133. 
Feuds  recorded  in  Register,  ii.  541. 
Fiery  Cross  in  the  Lowlands,  ii.  8. 
Fife,  Dufagan  of,  i.  loi. 
Fife,  Earl  of,  i.  246,  258,  502. 
Fights.     See  Battles. 
Finance  (see  also  Coinage) — 

Equivalent   under  Treaty  of  Union, 
iv.    1 13- 1 14,    117,   120,   132,   134; 
aaival  of,   139-140. 
Forced  loans  under  the  Covenanters, 

iii.  61. 
Octavians.     See  that  title. 
Union  Treaty  in  relation  to,  iv.  113- 
115. 
Finch,  Lord,  iv.  239. 


Find  later,  Earl  of,  iv.  164,  170. 

Findlater,  Ogilvie  of,  ii.  116. 

Finnart,    Sir   James    Hamilton    of,    i. 

398-399,    410,    4",   441,   45°,    504- 
506. 
Fintry,    Laird    of,    ii.   293,    295,    323, 

345,  363,  364,  381. 
Fintry,  Graham  of,  iv.  122. 
Firth,  C.  H.,  cited,  iii.   190  note,  274 

note. 
Fish,  i.  156. 

Fisher,  Rev. (seceder),  iv.  30 1. 

Fisheries,  neelect  of,  iv.  417. 

Fishing,  ii.  2  ^8  ;  salmon  netting,  iii.  44. 

Fishing  companies,  iv.  58. 

Fitzalan,  Richard,  Earl  of  Arundel,  i. 

273- 
Flag  of  Great  Britain,  iv.  116. 
Flaith,  i.  80-82,  87. 
Fleetwood,  iii.  232. 
Fleming,  iii.  399. 
Fleming,  Lady,  ii.  17. 
Fleming,  Lord  (1466),  i.  339. 
Fleming,  Lord  (1543),  i.  462. 
Fleming,  Lord  (1558),  ii.  43. 
Fleming,   Lord   (1565),    ii.    142,    162, 

198,  221,  225,  229,  235. 
Fleming,  Sir  David,  i.  288-289,  298. 
Fleming,  Dr  Hay,  cited,  i.  491,  492  ;  ii. 

40,  70,   102-103,   109,  133,   143-144, 

153,  157,  170,  196,  432,  548-549;  iii- 

350  note,    353   note,    394,    418;   iv. 

146. 
Fleming,  Malcolm  (1333),  i.  248-249. 
Fleming,    Mary  (wife  of  Maitland  of 

Lethington),  ii.   100,   108,   137,  219, 

249. 
Fleming,  Thos.,  Earl   of  Wigtown,  i. 

^35- 
Fleming,  Sir  William,  iii.  213,  223-226. 
Fletcher  of  Saltoun.     See  Saltoun. 
Fleury,    Cardinal,   iv.    424,    435,    437, 

438,  440. 
Flodden,   i.   378,   381,    386,    388-390; 

authorities  as  to,  390-391. 
Florence,  Count  of  Holland,  i.  172-173. 
Florence  of  Worcester  cited,  i.  46,  50, 

54-55,  57,  126,  169,  497-499. 
Flowers  o'  the  Forest,  i.  381. 
Floyd,  Capt.,  iv.  232. 
Foggo,  Abbot,  i.  309. 
Folkland,  i.  71-72,  86. 
Fonab,   Capt.  Alexander  Campbell  of, 

iv.  71. 
P'ontaine  (Fontenoy),  ii.  305,  306,  312. 
Food  in  feudal  times,  i.  155-156. 
Forbes,  Bp.,  as  an  authority,  iv.  519; 

cited,  476,  519,  529,  530. 
Forbes,  Bp.  of  Edinburgh  (Wm.),  iii. 

17,  22. 
Forbes,  Lord  (1488),  i.  350,  362. 


INDEX. 


567 


Forbes,  Major,  iv.  54. 

Forbes,  Master  of  (1537),  i.  443.  444-  . 

Forbes,    Moderator    of    Aberdeen,    ii. 

484-487. 
Forl)es,  President,  iv.  503. 
Forbes,  Duncan  (1567),  ii.  192. 
Forbes,  Sir  \Vm.  (1644),  iii.  127. 
Forbes,  Sir  Wm.  (1736),  iv.  429. 
Forbes  of  Culloden.     .SV^  CuUoden. 
Forbin,  Admiral,  iv.  14S-149. 
Fordel,  Brown  of,  iii.  253. 
Fordel,  Henderson  of,  ii.  188. 
Fordun,   John    of,    death   of,    i.    270 ; 

estimate  of,  253,  295-296  ;  cited,  26, 

48,  52,  100,  123,  127,   187,  188,  202, 

253-255,  503. 
Foreign  relations  (1489),  i.  363. 
Foreign  service  of  Scots  (1626),  iii.  12  ; 

Scots  Guard  in  France  (15th  century), 

i.  293-295,  307-308,  326. 
Forestry,  iv.  419. 
Forests,  i.  60,  61. 
Forfar  letter  cited,  i.  2lo,  212-213. 
Forfeiture,!.  135;  iv.  152. 
Forglen,  Ogilvie  of,  iv.  1 10. 
Forman,  Andrew,  Bp.  of  Moray  (later 

Abp.   of  St   Andrews),  i.  369,  375, 

376,  384,  3S8,  393-394,  420. 
Forrester,  Lord,  iv.  208,  209. 
Forret,  John  a,  ii.  565. 
Forster,   Mr,  iv.    195,  200,   204,  206- 

210. 
Forster,  Sir  John,  ii.  257,  313;  cited, 

271. 
Fort  Augustus,  iv.  503. 
Fort  William  (Inverlochy),  iv.   11,  32, 

36,  145,  503. 
Forteviot,  i.  37. 
Fortrenn,  i.  Ii,  19,  36,  46. 
Foster  (preacher),  iii.  16. 
Fosterage,  i.  41,  57  ;  iv.  373-374- 
Fothadh,  Bp.  of  Alban,  i.  97,  127. 
Fotheringham  cited,  iii.   166  note,   170 

no/e. 
Foul  Raid,  i.  293. 
Foulis,  Munro  of,  i.  397. 
Foulis,  Thos.,  ii.  553. 
Fountainhall,   Lord,  iv.   57  ;  cited,  iii. 

332   Hole,    363,    368,    370,    382-384, 

396,  397,  399,  404.,  4J2- 
Fournier,  Edouard,  cited,  ii.  201. 
Fowler  (spy),  ii.  290,  291. 
Fowler,  Thos.,  ii.  342  ;  cited,  344,  346, 

347; 
I'ox  cited,  iii.  404,  405,  406. 
Fox,  Henry,  cited,  iv.  472. 
France — 

Albany  assisted  by,  i.  403. 
Alliance     with     ("auld     alliance," 
Ancient  League) — 
Balliol,  by  (1294),  i.  177. 


Bruce,  by  (1326),  i.  232. 

Dawn  of,  under  William  the  Lion, 
i.  III. 

French  troops  in  Scotland  unpopu- 
lar, i.  259,  280. 

Renewal  of,  by  James  H.,  i.  325  ; 
under  James  IV.,  i.  366,  375  ; 
in   treaty   of    Rouen    (15 17),    i. 

397. 

Results  of,  i.  386. 

Salvation  of  Scotland    by  (1337), 

i.  254,   268-269. 
Unpopularityof,  in  Scotland  ( 1 554), 
iii.  22,  23. 

Amboise  Conspiracy,  ii.  64,  94. 

Avran's  intrigues  with,  i.  406. 

Bartholomew  Massacre,  ii.  242. 

Cambrai,  League  of,  i.  374. 

Covenanters'  negotiations  with  (1639- 
40),  iii.  71. 

Edward  L  of  England,  relations  with, 
i.  176-177,  185,  188. 

Edward  HI. 's  claim  to,  i.  253,  266; 
his  refusal  of  French  mediation,  503. 

Forces  from,  under  Jean  de  Vienne 
(1385),  i.  278-280;  under  Mont- 
gomerie  (1545),  482-483;  under 
Montalembert  (1548),  ii.  12-13. 

Holy  League  of  Guise,  ii.  313. 

Huguenot  refugees  from,  iv.  59. 

Invasion  by,  repulsed  by  Arran  and 
Lord  James  Stewart,  ii.  63. 

Jacobite  relations  with,  iv.  117,  137- 
138,  141,  146-147,  233,  237,  244, 
252,  262,  437,  442,  447-448,  451, 
463,  472-474,  506,  521  ;  expedition 
of  1708,  148-149;  Mar's  Memorial 
to  d'Orleans,  342-345. 

James  IV.'s  relations  with,  i.  366,  373- 

375- 
James  VIII.  recognised  king  by,  iv. 

77- 
Mary    Stuart's    marriage    with     the 

Dauphin,    ii.    36,    39 ;    suspected 

poisoning    of    Alarriage    Commis- 
sioners at  Dieppe,  43. 
Raiders  from  (1384),  i.  277-278. 
Scots  College  in  Paris — 

Founding  of,  i.  296. 

MSS.  in,  iv.  424. 
Scottish  force   in    (15th   century),   i. 

293-295,  307-30S,  326. 
Scouish  marriage  sought  by  (1428), 

i.  307. 
St  Andrews  besieged  by   (1547),  ii. 

7-8,  20-21. 
Spain   at    war  with   (1557),    ii-    35; 

(17 18),  iv.  263  ;  in  rivalry  with,  iL 

275,  282. 
Stuart  hopes  of,   ii.    217,   228.     {See 

also  sub-heading  Jacobite). 


568 


INDEX. 


Treaties — 

Amiens  (1333),  i.  192. 
Cambrai,  League  of  (1508),  i.  374. 
Edinburgh  (1560),  ii.  67-69. 
Fontainebleau  (1745),  iv.  473. 
Rouen  (1517),  i.  397. 
Tournay,  iv.  473,  476. 
Vincennes  (1372),  i.  275. 
Vassy,  massacre  of,  ii.  115,  121. 
War  with  (1702),  iv.  80. 
Francis  I.,  King  of  France,  i.  394,  397, 

408  ;  ii.  6. 
Francis  II. ,  King  of  France,  ii.  36,  39  ; 
Chatelherault's    (forged)    submission 
to,    64 ;    Treaty  of  Edinburgh,  67- 
69.  72,  73,  79.  94  ;  death  of,  95. 
Franck,  Richard,  cited,  iii.  204,  274. 
Fran9ois,  Wm.,  i.  216. 
Eraser,    Major,  of  Castle  Leather,  iv. 

213-215- 

Eraser,  Rev.  ,  iv.  307. 

Eraser,  Alexander,  cited,  iv.  523. 

Eraser,  Dr  James,  iv.  409-410. 

Eraser,     Simon,     Lord     Lovat.       See 

Lovat. 
Eraser,    Sir  Wm.,  cited,    i.    270,    271, 

298,  387. 
Eraserdale,  Mackenzie  of,  iv.  212,  214, 

215,  242. 
Frazer,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews,  i.  162,  164- 

167,  172. 
Frazer,  Alexander,  i.  245. 
Frazer,  Hugh,  of  Lovat,  i.  295. 
Frazer,  James,  i.  248,  249. 
Frazer,  Simon  (1332),  i.  246,  248,  249. 
Frazer,  Sir  Simon,  i.  181,  192-194,  206. 
Free  and  unfree.     See  Bondage. 
Free  trade  with  England   (1652),    iii. 

272,  273. 
Freebairn,  Bp.,  iv.  328,  335. 
Freeholders'  courts,  i.  151. 
Freeman,  E.  A.,  cited,  i.  45-48,  50,  54, 

91-92,  127,  128,  168-169,  496. 
Erendraglit,Crichton  of,  iii.  22,  56,  69. 
F"rendraght,  Young,  iii.  216. 
Frcndraght,  fuc  of,  iii.  22. 
Frendraught,  Sir  James  Crichton  of,  i. 

330. 
Froissart  cited,   i.    273,    276,  277-280, 

282,  297. 
Eroude,  J.  A.,  ii.   85,  378  ;  cited — on 

Moray,    225  ;    on     Knox,    247  ;    on 

Scottish    embassy    for    Mary's    life, 

326;    on    Mary    Stuart,    330-331; 

otherwise,  i.  405,  418,  443,  453-454. 

467;    ii.  42,   48,    51,    71,    93,    loi, 

112,    114,    119-121,    123,    124,    134, 

136,  139.    150-153.    >57.    161,    172, 

176,  178,    184,    195-194,    200-201, 

217,  219,    220,  226,  231,  234,  285, 

30'.  334;  iv.    263. 


Ereuch,  Macdowall  of,  iii.  356. 
Fullarton,  Bp.,  iv.  326,  328,  33i-.:;33. 
Funerals,  excessive  cost  of,  iv.  397. 
Eyfe,  Christian,  iii.  374. 

Gace,  iv.  148. 

Gadderar,  Bp.,  iv.  327,  329-334. 

Gaidhel.     See  Goidel. 

Gairdner  cited,  i.  367,  388  ;  ii.  93. 

Galloway — • 

Bruce  opposed  by,  i.  206-207. 

Church-rioting  in  (1642),  iii.  104. 

Feudalism  resisted  in,  i.  135. 

Homage  by  Celts  of,  to  Edward  I., 
i.  496. 

Malcolm    the   Maiden's   subjugation 
of,  i.    no. 

Official  corruption  in,  i.  148-149. 

Picts  of,  at  Battle  of  the  Standard,  i. 
105-106. 

Riots  against  enclosures  in,  iv.  391- 

Trial,  form  of,  in,  i.  150. 

Galloway,  Fair  Maid  of,  i.  330. 

Galloway,  1st  Earl  of,  iii.  61,  78. 

Galloway,  5th  Earl  of,  iv.  137. 

Galloway,  Gilbert  of,  i.  114,  115. 

Galloway,  Macdowal  of,  i.  251. 

Galloway,  Rev.  Patrick,  after  the 
Gowrie  conspiracy,  ii.  453,  460, 
461  ;  appointed  Moderator,  475  ;  at 
Sprot's  examination,  573;  otherwise 
mentioned,  396,  444,  513,  560. 

Gardening,  iv.  420. 

Gardiner,  Bp.,  i.  428. 

Gardiner,  Col.,  iv.  420,  464,  465,  469, 
470. 

Gardiner,  Dr,  cited,  i.  197,  199,  298; 
ii.  466,  489,  521  ;  iii.  4,  9,  15,  17 
note,  26,  31  note,  32,  35,  38,  41,  45, 
48,  49.  56,  61,  70,  75,  76  7iotes,  83, 
100,  103,  123,  126,  128  note,  138, 
143,  144,  158,  166  7!0(e,  168,  174- 
175,  ijb  note,  lyS-iyg  a/icf  ftote,  181, 
185,  200,  212,  220,  221-224,  229, 
230,  245,   256  and  note,  257,  259. 

Gardyne  of  Gardync,  ii.  345. 

Garrishorn,  Hew  Kennedy  of,  ii.  544. 

Gask,  House  of,  i.  107. 

Gask,  Oliphant  of,  iv.  463,  471. 

Gaveston,  Piers,  i.  212,  215,  216. 

Gaydon,  Major,  iv.  148,  275-277. 

(iencral  Assemblies.     See  under  Kirk. 

"Gentle"  and  "Simple,"  i.  134-135. 

George  I.,  King,  ]iioclaimed  King,  iv. 
171  ;  receives  Highland  submissions, 
173;  neglects  Mar,  173,  174;  policy 
towards  Kpiscojialians,  327  ;  deatii  of 
(1727),  354,  423  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  258,   2(18,   289,   294. 

George  II.,  King,  iv.  355.436,439.  463- 


INDEX. 


569 


Ghosts,  i.  69,  86. 

Gib,  Rev.- —  (1742),  iv.  317,  319,  329. 

Gibb,  or  Gib,  Meikle  John  (preaclier), 

iii.    19,  340,  359-360. 
GifTord  (spy),  ii.  319. 
Gight,  Gordon  of  {1589),  ii.  345,  392  ; 

iii.  12. 
Gight,  Gordon  of  (1644),  iii.  115-116. 
Giidas  cited,  i,  15. 
Gilian,  iv.  333-334. 
Gillean,  Clan,  i.  519. 
Gillespie,    Patrick  (preacher),   iii.    105, 

no,  243,  247,  248,  271,  277  ;  made 

Principal  of  Glasgow  University,  261. 
Gilnockie,  Armstrong  of,  i.  416. 
Girard,  Regnault,  ciied,  i.  316,  318. 
Glamis,  Lady,  i.  443-445. 
Glamis,  4th  Lord,  i.  350. 
Glamis,  6th  Lord,  i.  444,  457. 
Glamis,  7th  Lord,  i.  474,  478. 
Glamis,  8th  Lord  (Chancellor),  ii.  260, 

261. 
Glamis,  Master  of,  in  the  Raid  of  Ruth- 

ven,   ii.    285,   287  ;  placed  in  ward, 

294  ;  forfeited,  300  ;  made  Captain  of 

the  Guard,  316;  otherwise  mentioned, 

295,   296,   345,   347,   367,  373,  375, 

376. 
Glasgoe,  Major,  iv.  504. 
Glasgow — 

Bishopric  of,  founded,  i.  loi  ;  wealth 
of,  154  ;  archbishopric  created,  365. 

Cathedral,  i.  158,  365. 

Casket  Letters  from,  ii.  567,  568. 

Darnley  ill  at,  ii.  173  ;  brought  from, 
by  Mary,  174. 

Fined  by  Prince  Charles  in  the  '45, 
iv.  490. 

Foreign  trade  of,  pinched  by  war  with 
Spain  (1742),  iv.  417. 

Malt  riots,  iv.  359-360,  369. 

Rutherglen  ascendancy  over,  i.  144. 
Glasgow,  Earl  of,  iv.  1 10. 
Glasgow  University,  iv.  333,  404,  406, 

408. 
Gledstanes,  Abp.   of   St  Andrews,    ii. 

465,  480,  510, 
Glenbucket,  Gordon  of,   iv.    199,   215, 

218,  219,   225,  347,  479,  4S6,  501. 
Glenbuckie,  Stewart  of,  iv.  465. 
Glencairn,  Earl  of  (151 5),  i.  394. 
Glencairn,  Earl  of,  treason  of,  i.  462  ; 

sells    himself  to   Henry,   407,   478 ; 

otherwise  mentioned,  454,  469,  470, 

472,  475.  4S0,  508. 
Glencairn,  Earl  of,  at  Adam  Wallace's 

trial,    ii.    19  ;    letter    to    Knox,    34 ; 

godly    band,    37  -  38  ;     with    insur- 
gents at   Perth,    52-53 ;    embassy    to 

Elizabeth,    94 ;    conspiracy    against 

Riccio,    1 59 ;    pardoned    by    Slary, 


163 ;  joins  band  against  Lennox, 
284;  otherwise  mentioned,  142,  150, 
152,  219,  285. 

Glencairn,  Earl  of  (1588),  ii.  340,  367. 

Glencairn,  Earl  of  (1652),  appointed 
Governor  of  the  Highlands,  iii.  266, 
268  ;  at  feud  with  Lome,  268  and 
note;  complains  against  Balcarres 
and  Argyll,  270 ;  quarrels  with 
Monroe,  271  and  ttofe ;  forfeited, 
272 ;  appointed  Chancellor,  283 ; 
suppresses  conventicles,  290  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  58,  153,  196,  274, 
286,  287,  299. 

Glencairn,  Earl  of  (1707),  iv.  137. 

Glencoe,  situation  of,  iv.  40-41. 

Glencoe,  Macdonalds  of,  Donald  Dubh 
rescued  by,  i.  508. 

Glencoe,  Maclan  Macdonald  of  (1604), 
ii.  528,  540. 

Glencoe,  Maclan  of,  iv.  37,  40-45. 

Glencoe  massacre,  iv.  39-47,  54-55. 

Glendaruel,  Campbell  of,  iv.  174,  184, 
185,  269,  270,  337. 

Glendinning  (1555),  ii.  24. 

Glendinning  (1649),  iii.  198. 

Glendinning,  Sir  Simon,  i.  329. 

Glenfruin  slaughter,  ii.  528. 

Glengaber  mineral  treasure,  ii.  553. 

Glengarry,    Macdonald    of    (1514),    i. 

597-398. 
Glengarry,    Macdonald    of   (1600),    ii. 

527.528. 
Glengarry,    Macdonald   of  (1652),    iii. 

262,  265,  266,  271,  274. 
Glengarry,    Macdonald   of  (1689),    iv. 

13.  16,  36,  38-40,  42-43. 
Glengarry,    Macdonald   of  (1707),    iv. 

137- 
Glengarry,    Macdonald    of  (171 5),    at 

Sheriffmuir,  iv.  218;  terms  obtained 

by,  241,  244;  otherwise  mentioned, 

182,  186,  191-194.  197,  212,  224,  265. 
Glengarry  (old)   (1745),   iv.  453,  459, 

461,  477,  520,  530;  story  of  wife  of, 

386-387. 
Glengarry  (young)  (1745),  captured,  iv. 

477  ;    question    of  identity    of,    with 

Pickle  the  spy,  525-526  ;   otherwise 

mentioned,  451,  452. 
Glengyle,  Macgregor  of,  iv.  192. 
Glenlyon,  Cam]ibell  of,  iv.  44-45. 
Glenmoriston,  Grant  of,  iv.  192,  520. 
Glenorchy,  ii.  436. 
Glenrinnes,  ii.  391-393. 
Glenstra,  Macgregor  of,  ii.  528. 
Glenurchy,  Campbell  of.  ii.  355-356. 
Gloucester,  i.  202,   219-220,  222,  224, 

240. 
Glover,   Dr,   cited,    iv.   336,   339,  350- 

351- 


570 


INDEX. 


Godfrey    (son    of   Donald    Ban    Mac- 

william),  i.  I18-119. 
Godfrey,  King  of  Man,  i.  no. 
"Godly,"  Kirk's  meaning  of  term,  iii. 

272. 
Godolphin,  iv.  92,  97,  no,  113. 
Godscroft,   Hume    of,    ii.    296 ;    cited, 

561-562. 
Goidels,  i.  3,  15. 
Gold-mining,  ii.  553. 
Golden  age,  i.  159. 
Golf,  prohibition  of,  i.  281,  301. 
Golf-balls,  ii.  555. 
Gonzolles,  i.  401,  407. 
Goodtress,  Stewart  of,  cited,  iii.  312, 

327- 

Gordon,  Bp.  of  Galloway,  ii.  127. 

Gordon,  Duchess  of,  iv.  142-145,  149, 
287,  522. 

Gordon,  1st  Duke  of,  in  Edinburgh 
Castle,  iii.  413,  419-422;  iv,  2;  sur- 
renders, 4  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  iii. 
409;  iv.  117,  137,  143. 

Gordon,  2nd  Duke  of  (Huntly),  re- 
lations of,  with  Marischal,  iv.  211  ; 
makes  truce  with  Sutherland,  225  ; 
backward  and  inactive,  228,  229 ; 
makes  his  peace  in  London,  232 ; 
feud  with  NIacphersons  reconciled, 
347  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  182,  191, 
210,  212,  215,  216,  221,  224,  265. 

Gordon,  3rd  Duke  of,  iv.  312. 

Gordon,  Lord,  with  the  Covenanters, 
iii.  115,  123;  with  Montrose,  137, 
147;  death  of,  149;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 74,  126,  128,  140. 

Gordon,  Rev.  ,  iv.  315. 

Gordon,  Adam  de  (1402),  i.  287. 

Gordon,  Adam,  ii.  117,  240,  251. 

Gordon,  Gen.  Alexander,  iv.  196-197, 
217,  228,  229,  231. 

Gordon,  Lady  Catherine,  i.  368. 

Gordon,  Lord  Charles,  iii.  271. 

Gordon,  Father  James,  leaves  for  Scot- 
land, ii.  395  ;  price  put  on,  430 ; 
challenge  to  the  ministers  declined, 
437>  438 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  364, 
381,  389  note. 

Gordon,  John,  ii.  116-117,  119. 

Gordon,  Lord  Lewis  (1639).  See 
liuntly,  3rd  Marquess  of. 

Gordon,  Lord  Lewis  (1745),  iv.  482- 
483,  490,  491. 

Gordon,  Nathaniel,  iii.    116,   123,  135, 

147.  153.  15s.  157,  I5«  «'"'^.  «62. 
Gordon,  Patrick,  cited,  iii.  49,  52-56, 
59,  69  note,  76  and  note,  lOI,  1 15, 
120,  127,  128  note,  129  note,  130 
and  note,  132  and  note,  133  note,  134 
note,  137  note,  141,  143,  145,  151, 
I57-I59- 


Gordon,  Sir  Robert,  iv.  312-313. 

Goring,  Sir  Harry,  iv.  249,  337. 

Gorm,  John  .Stewart,  i.  315. 

Gorme,  Sir  Donald,  iii.  71. 

Gorthie,  Graham  of,  iii.  294. 

Gortuleg,  Eraser  of,  iv.  461-462. 

Gortz,  iv.  257,  258,  264. 

Gospatric,  Earl  of  Northumbria,  i.  91, 
92,  loi,  136. 

Gouda,  Nicholas,  S.  J.,  ii.  I13-I14; 
cited,  82,  89,  122. 

Gourlay,  Norman,  i.  431,  433. 

Gowrie,  Earl  of  (4th  Lord  Ruthven), 
passion  of,  for  Mary,  ii.  190,  297 ; 
arranges  treaty  regarding  Edinburgh 
Castle,  248  ;  of  Lennox's  faction,  268 ; 
at  feud  with  Morton,  270 ;  joins 
band  against  Lennox,  284 ;  Raid  of 
Ruthven,  285-286,  290 ;  refuses  assas- 
sination plot,  286  ;  in  James's  favour, 
292-294 ;  arrest  and  execution  of, 
296-298  ;  career  of,  297  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  151,  219,  260-262. 

Gowrie,  3rd  Earl  of  (John),  studies  at 
Edinburgh,  ii.  371 ;  machinations  with 
Atholl,  379-381  ;  retires  to  Padua, 
385,  444 ;  returns,  444 ;  at  the 
English  court,  445  ;  arrives  in  Scot- 
land, ib ;  at  court,  446 ;  the  con- 
spiracy, 449-457,  459,  461-464,  572- 
575  ;  killed,  457  ;  religion  of,  444  ; 
amulet  worn  by,  ib.,  458,  550; 
mentioned,  443. 

Gowrie,  Lady,  ii.  310,  362,  368,  371, 
448,  449,  468,  558. 

Gowrie  conspiracy — 

Evidence  as  to,  ii.  449-464. 
Forgeries    connected    with,    ii.    568, 

571-575- 
Holiday  on   anniversary  of,   ii.  448, 

474- 
Sprot's   confessions   as    to,   ii.    545, 

570-571,  573-575- 

Trial  for,  ii.  368. 
Graden,  Kerof(i53o),  i.  416. 
Graden,  Ker  of  (1745),  iv.  494,  508; 

cited,  469,  483-484,   500,   506,   507, 

510,  513,  524-525. 
Graeme,  Father,  cited,  iv.  245. 
Graham  (1333),  i.  249. 
Graham,  Bp.  of  Orkney,  ii.  510. 
Graham,  1st  Lord,  i.  335. 
Graham,  Lord  (Montrose's  eldest  son), 

iii.  132,  137. 
Graham,     Lord      (James,     Montrose's 

second  son),  iii.  137. 
(iraham,  Sir  David,  i.  189,  194. 
Graham,    David    (Ijrother    of    Claver- 

house),  iii.  370,  376,  387. 
Graham,  Dougal,  cited,  iv.  512. 
Graham,  Dr  Grey,  cited,  iv.  397. 


INDEX. 


571 


Graham,  Sir  John  (1346),  i.  258. 

Graham,  Sir  John  (1727),  iv.  353.  354- 

Graham,  Sir  Patrick,  i.  311,  317. 

Graham,  Patrick,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews, 
relations  of,  with  the  ]ioyds,  i.  339- 
342,  357-358 ;  payments  to  Rome 
by,  427. 

Graham,  Richard,  ii.  341,  353,  374. 

Graham,  Sir   Robert,  i.  301,   312-313, 

315- 

Grahams,  i.  251  ;  ii.  407. 

Grampian  Hills,  i.  6,  18. 

Grandtully,  Stewart  of  (1641),  iii.  86, 
87. 

Grandtully,  Stewart  of  (1696),  iv.  64. 

Grange,  Lady,  iv.  269,  379-386- 

Grange,  Lord  (Hon.  James  Erskine), 
proposal  by,  for  abjuration  of  the 
Covenant,  iv.  170  ;  in  Kirk  affairs, 
283,  294-297 ;  ecstatic  experiences 
of,  309  no/e  ;  tragedy  of  his  wife, 
380-386 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  314, 
361. 

Grange,  Erskine  of,  iv.  441,  443. 

Grange,  Kirkcaldy  of  (1540),  dealings 
of,  with  Finnart,  i.  450,  505 ;  of 
Beaton's  party,  474,  479,  492 ; 
against  him,  475-476 ;  deprived  of 
Treasurership,  455  ;  pardoned,  ii. 
25. 

Grange,  Kirkcaldy  of  ("Corax"),  at 
the  murder  of  Beaton,  i.  489-490; 
intrigues  with  England,  ii.  56  ;  warn- 
ing anent  Bothwell,  133  ;  anent 
Dudley  marriage,  134  ;  privy  to 
Riccio  plot,  161  ;  communications  to 
Bedford,  182,  184,  186 ;  foreknow- 
ledge of  Mary's  abduction,  184  and 
note ;  determines  to  avenge  Darnley, 
186,  187;  at  Langside,  196-197; 
accused  by  Randolph,  222,  230 ; 
obtains  Lethington's  release,  223- 
224  ;  sets  Herries  free,  228 ;  joins 
Mary's  party,  229 ;  quarrel  with 
Knox,  233,  236  ;  renounces  Lennox, 
235  ;  holds  Edinburgh  Castle  for 
Mary,  235-237 ;  hanging  of,  pro- 
phesied by  Knox,  242,  249 ;  hanged, 
249 ;  estimate  of,  249-250 ;  cited, 
57.  59.  182,  184,  186 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  16,  126,  188,  227. 

Giange,  Wm.  Kirkcaldy  of  (1618),  ii. 

515- 
Grant  (officer),  iv.  474,  475,  503. 
Grant,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  398. 
Grant,  Sir  Alexander,  cited,  iv.  400. 
Grant  of  Grant,  iv.  no. 
Grants,  iv.  7,  13. 
Grave-goods,  i.  69. 
Gray  (Grey),  Lord  (1544),  i.  462,  471- 

475.  478-479  ;  ii-  6  8- 


Gray,  Lord  (Patrick),  ii.  328. 

Ciray,  Master  of,  prepares  to  betray 
both  Arran  and  Mary,  ii.  305,  310; 
bought  by  England,  306  ;  safe-con- 
duct to  England  obtained  for,  309  ; 
Mary's  suspicions  of,  312;  betrays 
Mary,  ib.;  plots  against  Arran,  313  ; 
friendship  for  Sir  Ph.  Sidney,  ib., 
321,  324;  in  disfavour  with  Arran 
and  Elizabeth,  314;  denounced  by 
Arran,  316;  contemplates  campaign- 
ing in  the  Netherlands,  321  ;  advo- 
cates Mary's  death,  322-323;  "a 
Scottis  man,"  324,  325,  329 ;  em- 
bassy on  Mary's  behalf,  325-329 ; 
betrayed  by  Stewart,  336  ;  treachery 
of,  on  return  to  Scotland,  347  ;  re- 
turns to  favour  with  James,  361-362  ; 
signs  Bothwell's  terms,  373  ;  Zouche 
intrigues  with,  383  ;  Cecil's  spy,  440  ; 
returns  from  France,  472  ;  received 
into  favour,  475 ;  otherwise  mentioned, 

310.  379,  503.  571- 
Gray,  Andrew,  iii.  308  and  note. 
Gray,  Patrick  (1488),  i.  351. 
Gray,  Ralph,  ii.  472. 
Gray  (Grey),  Sir    Thos.,    at    Neville's 

Cross,  i.  257  ;  imprisoned,  259 ;  cited, 

202,   503.      {See  also  Scalacronica) ; 

otherwise  mentioned,   219-220,  224, 

271. 
Graymond  cited,  iii.  219. 
Great  Britain — 

Flag  of,  iv.  1 16. 

James    VL's   use   of  title,    ii.    480,* 
500. 
Green,  Capt.,  iv.  102-105. 
Green,  Mr,  cited,  i.  497,  498. 

Greenshields,  Rev.  ,  iv.  154-155. 

Gregory,    Dr,   cited,    i.   507 ;   ii.   436, 

527,  528,  530. 
Gregory,  Prof.,  iv.  36,  114,  115. 
Gregorys  of  Aberdeen,  iv.  410. 
Grenard,  iv.  137. 
Greville,  Fulke,  cited,  ii.  324. 
Grey,  Sir  Patrick  (1451),  i.  328-329. 
Grimani  (Legate),  i.  472,  473. 
Grub  (historian)  cited,  iii.  299  ;  iv.  49, 

52,  301. 
Gruoch,  i.  53. 
Gualterio,  Cardinal,  iv.  246,  348,  349, 

352.  353- 
Gualtier,  Abbe,  iv.  167,  168,  171. 
'Gude  and  Godlie   Ballatis'   cited,  ii. 

32-34- 
Guevara,   Sir  John,  ii.  439,  464,  572. 
Guillon,  iii.  344. 
Guise,  Cardinal,  ii.  53. 
Guise,  Due  de,  plots  regarding  James, 

ii.  2S2  ;  sends  horses  to  James,  284  ; 

James's  letter  to,  293-294 ;  Scottish 


572 


INDEX. 


nobles'  intrigue  with,  320,  322,  334  ; 
murder  of,  342-343 ;  mentioned,  291. 

Gun,  Col.,  iii.  57-59. 

Gunpowder  Plot,  ii.  485. 

Guthrie,  Mr  James,  baits  Montrose,  iii. 
219;  presents  new  declaration  for 
Charles's  signature,  233 ;  blames  Les- 
lie, 238  note,  243  ;  leader  of  Remons- 
trants, 247-249;  restricted  to  Perth, 
250  ;  arrested,  289  ;  hanged,  298  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  177,  182,  252, 
265,  271,  276,  277  ;  iv.  305,  306. 

Guthry,  Bp.  of  Dunkeld,  opposes 
private  conventicles,  iii.  84  ;  estimate 
of,  85  ;  Turner's  criticism  of,  184 
note ;  cited,  67,  75  note,  86,  89  note, 
99,  100  note,  107,  136  7iote,  151  note, 
l^S  and  note,  182,  183  and  note,  188. 

Gyllenborg,  iv.  258. 

Hackson  of  Rathillet.     See  Rathillet. 

Haddington  Abbey,  i.  260. 

Haddington,  6th  Earl  of,  iv.  105. 

Haddington,  House  of,  ii.  398. 

Haddo,  Gordon  of,  iii.  115-116. 

Hadow,  Principal,  iv.  285,  286. 

Hadrian's  Wall,  i.  9,  19. 

Haethfield,  battle  of,  i.  32,  39. 

Hailes,  Lord,  cited,  i.  129,  174,  180, 
198,  199,  232,  262,  270;  ii.  458. 

Hailes,  Lord  (Hepburn).  See  Both- 
well, 

Haining,  Scott  of,  ii.  542. 

Hakon,  King  of  Norway,  i.  122-123. 

Haldane  (1645),  iii.  155. 

Haliburton  (1530),  i.  416. 

Haliburton  (1691),  iv.  46-47. 

Halidon  Hill,  i,  248-249,  270,  503. 

Halket,  Sir  James,  iv.  99. 

Halket,  Sir  Peter,  iv.  470. 

Hall  cited,  i.  380,  383. 

Hall,  Mr  (J. P.),  iv.  240. 

Hall,  Rev.  ,  ii.  573. 

Hall,  Thos.,  i.  315. 

Hallahill,  Henry  Balnevis  (Balnaves) 
of,  ambassador  to  Kngl.ind,  i.  465, 
469,  470  ;  imprisoned,  474  ;  treason 
of,  ii.  8  ;  ]:)ardoned  by  Parliament, 
25 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  475, 
479;  ii.  6,  16. 

Halton,  Lindsay  of,  ii.  345. 

Haltoun,  William  Lauder  of,  i.  328. 

Halloun  (Charles  Maitland),  Master  of 
the  Mint,   iii.   327,  366-369;    cited, 

330-332. 
Halyburton,   Rev.   Prof.,  cited,  ii.  86; 

iv.  57. 
Halyburton,  Rev.  George,  iii.  123. 
Hamilion,  House  of,  i.  340,  355-356; 

notarial  document  among  papers  of, 

467. 


Hamilton,  Abp.  of  St  Andrews,  re- 
lations of,  with  Arran,  i.  468,  470  ; 
at  Pinkie,  ii.  10  ;  friction  with  Queen 
Regent,  25  ;  discourages  persecution, 
28  ;  controversy  with  Argyll,  42  ;  on 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  77  ;  Protes- 
tant attempts  on,  98 ;  imprisoned, 
127  ;  restored  by  Mary,  173 ; 
Ainslie's  band,  183 ;  offers  himself 
as  hostage  to  Moray,  217  ;  execution 
of,  235  ;  profligacy  of,  14-15  ;  treach- 
ery of,  192  ;  Catechism  of,  29  ;  cited, 
79 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  490 ; 
ii.  3,  5,  36,  43,  54,  55,  109,  216, 
220. 

Hamilton,  Col.,  iv.  166-167. 

Hamilton,  Duchess  of  (niece  of  2nd 
Duke),  iii.  272. 

Hamilton,  Duchess  of,  iv.  184. 

Hamilton,  1st  Duke  of,  Charles's  affec- 
tion for,  iii.  21,  46  ;  mission  with  the 
proclamations  (1638),  35-37;  drives 
time,  37-38  :  disputable  conduct,  40  ; 
last  protestation  and  withdrawal  from 
General  Assembly,  41  ;  curious  letter 
(Nov.  27,  1638),  42  ftote,  54  ;  forces 
under,  52-54  ;  instructions  to  Huntly, 
54,  55  note ;  ineffective  proceedings, 
57  ;  doubts  and  fears,  60 ;  advice  to 
Charles,  64,  66 ;  authorised  by 
Charles  to  play  the  spy,  66-67  ; 
active  for  his  own  preservation,  81  ; 
denounced  as  traitor  and  acquitted, 
91  ;  alliance  with  Argyll,  92,  102  ; 
"the  Incident,"  92-99;  Montrose's 
supposed  incriminating  knowledge 
against,  98-100;  advises  contrary  to 
Montrose,  106  ;  created  Duke,  108  ; 
in  despair,  no;  imprisoned,  in; 
after  release  meets  the  king,  176 
note,  197  ;  lukewarm  for  the  king, 
182,  186,  187,  189;  disputes  with 
Callendar,  191  ;  defeated  at  Preston, 
192  ;  executed,  202  ;  estimate  of,  35, 
46,  197  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  ii. 
504,  516;  iii.  15,  34,   105,   107. 

Hamilton,  2nd  Duke  of  (Earl  of  Lan- 
ark), Scottish  Secretary,  iii.  73,  91  : 
"the  Incident,"  92-94  ;  imprisoned, 
III  ;  for  the  Covenanters,  136,  153  ; 
lukewarm  for  the  king,  182,  185, 
186  ;  offers  to  serve  under  Montrose, 
199,  207  ;  renounces  the  Engagement, 
200  ;  discourted,  230,  231  ;  death  of, 
258;  otherwise  mentioned,  187-1S8, 
190- 191,  196,  206. 

Hamilton,  3rd  Duke  of,  opposition  of, 
to  Lauderdale,  iii.  326,  327,  334; 
relations  with  William  of  Orange, 
422  ;  Royal  Commissioner,  iv.  I,  5, 
49  ;    death  of,   53 ;    otherwise  men- 


INDEX. 


573 


tioned,  iii.  313,  369,  419-421  ;  iv.  2, 
4,  23,  28,  29. 
Hamilton,  4th  Duke  of  (Earl  of  Arran), 
made  Duke  of  Hamilton,  iv.  73  ;  de- 
nounces legality  of  Parliament  ( 1 702), 
82 ;  Lovat's  revelations  regarding, 
95-97  ;  approaches  to  Country  Party, 
97  ;  proposal  as  to  Union  Commis- 
sion, 107  ;  not  on  Union  Commission, 
no;  distrusted,  if).,  118;  negotia- 
tions with  Hooke,  118;  in  Queens- 
berry's  power,  ib.,  127,  131  ; 
countermands  Highland  coufi,  131  ; 
breaks  another  plan,  132 ;  deserts 
Cavaliers  a  third  time,  133  ;  James 
VHI.'s  letter  to,  138;  promised 
equivalent  for  Chatelherault,  141  ; 
backward  towards  James,  143,  144, 
148;  negotiations  with  France,  146; 
safe  in  England,  149 ;  obtains  re- 
lease of  Scottish  prisoners,  151  ; 
claim  to  seat  in  House  of  Lords, 
162  ;  on  repealing  the  Union,  163  ; 
duel  with  Mohun,  166-167;  death 
of,  165  ;  influence  of,  loi  ;  estimate 
of,  88  ;  cited  on  Capt.  Green's  case, 
104-105;  otherwise  mentioned,  28, 
30,     89,    98,    100,    120,    122,    126, 

152-153- 
Hamilton,  5th  Duke  of,  iv.  328,  352, 

435- 
Hamilton,  6th  Duke  of,  iv.  451,  453. 

Hamilton,    1st    Lord  (James),   i.    330, 

331.  339.  340,  355-356. 

Hamilton,  1st  Marquess  of  (Lord  John 

Hamilton),  on  suggested  toleration, 

"•  375  ;  M""  Bruce's  appeal  to,  419- 

422  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  323,  345, 

;        346,  348,  351,  367,  380. 

Hamilton,  Alexander  (Sandie,  brother 
of  "  Auld  Melrose"),  iii.  55,  112,  191. 

Hamilton,  Gen.,  iv.  190-191,  200,  215, 
219,  224,  229,  233. 

Hamilton,  Lieut. -Col.,  iv.  44-45,  54. 

Hamilton,  Lord  Basil,  iv.  73. 

Hamilton,  Lord  Basil  (son  of  preced- 
ing), iv.  204- 

Hamilton,  Lord  Claude,  Morton's 
attack  on,  ii.  263-265 ;  flight  and 
banishment,  264 ;  forfeiture,  265  ; 
Elizabeth's  efforts  for,  266 ;  reverts 
to  Marian  faction,  318;  intrigue  with 
Spain,  320,  322,  334,  363;  im- 
prisoned, 344 ;  otherwise  mentioned, 

238,  343- 
Hamilton,  Douglas,  cited,  iii.  73  7iote. 
Hamilton,  Rev.  Kzekiel,  iv.    185,   187, 

249-250,  425,  427. 
Hamilton,  Gavin,  iv.  415. 
Hamilton,  Henrj-,  M.A.,  ii.  354. 
Hamilton,  John  (priest),  ii.  235. 


Hamilton,  Major,  cited,  iv.  511. 
Hamilton,    Mary,    ballad   of,    ii.    131, 

146. 
Hamilton,  Patrick,  Abbot  of  Feme,  i. 

411,  429-431.  445.  450- 

Hamilton,  Robert  (preacher),  iii.  341, 
346-354,   402. 

Hamilton,  Thos.,  i.  506. 

Hamilton,  Sir  Thos.  (Tarn  o'  the  Cow- 
gate).     See  Melrose. 

Hamilton  of  Finnart,  Kincavel,  &c. 
See  Finnart,  Kincavel,  &c. 

Handfast  marriages,  ii.  530,  533. 

Harald,  Earl  of  Caithness,  i.  116-117. 

Harden,  Scott  of,  iii.  273,  375. 

Harding,  Robert,  i,  296. 

Hardwicke,  Lord,  cited,  iv.  521. 

Hardy,  Sir  Thos. ,  cited,  i.  299. 

Harington,  Sir  John,  ii.  481. 

Harlaw,  i.  291-292  ;  ii.  29. 

Harley.     See  Oxford. 

Harries,  Dr  Hugh,  ii.  456. 

Harrison,  iii.  255,  257. 

Hart,  Andrew,  ii.  422. 

Hartcla,  Andrew  de,  i.  225,  231-232. 

Hartfell,  Earl  of  (Johnstone  of  John- 
stone), iii.    114. 

Hastings  (claimant  to  throne),  i.  174, 
189. 

Hastings,  Col.  (1689),  i^'-  H.  1S-19. 

Haughhead,  Henry  Hall  of,  iii.  357- 
358. 

Haughton,  Sir  Henry,  iv.  207,  209. 

Hawley,  Gen.,  iv.  491-495. 

Hawthornden,  Drummond  of,  iii.  21  ; 
cited,  i.  344. 

Hawthorne,  Bailie,  iv.  287. 

Hay  family,  i.  308. 

Hay,  Alexander  (Clerk  of  Register),  ii. 
207  note,  402,   502,  504,  566  ;  cited, 

534- 
Hay,  Andrew,  ii.  297. 
Hay,    Capt.,    iv.    435,    503,    507,    516, 

518  ;  cited,  507. 
Hay,  Commendator  of  Balmerinoch,  ii. 

141,  142,  145. 
Hay,    F'ather    Edmund,    ii.    122,    306, 

344-  . 
Hay,  Sir  George.     See  Kinfauns. 
Hay,  John  (brother  of  Lord  Kinnoull). 

See  Inverness. 
Hay,  Sir  John,  iii.  98,  161. 
Hay  of  Dalgetty,    Hay  of  Errol,  &c. 

See  Dalgetty,  Errol,  «!v:c. 
Hay  the  Constable,  i.  25S. 
Hazelrig,  Sheriff,  i.  iSi. 
Headshaw,  Scott  of,  i.  416. 
Heddilstane,  ii.  572. 
Hemingburgh    cited,   i.    1 84- 185,    198, 

202-203,  210-212,   237-23S,   503. 
Ilenderland,  Cock  burn  of,  i.  415. 


574 


INDEX. 


Henderson  cited,  iv.  464. 

Henderson,  Alexander  (minister  of 
Leuchars),  resists  the  liturgy,  iii.  27  ; 
Moderator,  41  ;  appointed  to  Edin- 
burgh University,  44 ;  on  Royalists 
as  Amalekites,  60  ;  pamphlet  against 
Episcopacy,  82 ;  opposes  conventicles, 
84  ;  Montrose's  interview  with,  107  ; 
relations  with  Charles,  171,  175 ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  66,  105,  106, 
no,   135. 

Henderson,  Andrew,  ii.  451-454,  456, 
460-463. 

Henderson,  James,  cited,  ii.  22-23. 

Henderson,  Major,  iv.  23. 

Henri  II. ,  King  of  France,  urges  mar- 
riage of  Mary  with  the  Dauphin,  ii. 
36,  37  ;  Court  of,  40 ;  death  of,  58  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  6,  17,  53. 

Henri   HI.,    King  of  France,  ii.   293, 

334- 

Henrietta  Maria,  Queen,  plottings  of, 
iii.  72,  82,  lOl  ;  returns  from  abroad, 
106  ;  disregards  Montrose,  zV>.  ; 
Charles's  assurances  to,  169,  171  ; 
consulted  as  to  the  Argyll  marriage 
project,  250-251  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  5,    107,    149,   168,   180,  229. 

Henry  I.,  King  of  England,  i.  99,  103, 
132. 

Henry  H.,  King  of  England,  i.  107- 
108,   no,   112-116,  128. 

Henry  HI.,  King  of  England,  i.  120- 
122,  170. 

Henry  IV.,  King  of  England,  invasion 
of  Scotland  by,  i.  286;  Celtic  alliance 
with  (1408),  i.  291  ;  death  of,  292; 
mentioned,   288. 

Henry  V.,  King  of  England,  i.  288, 
292-294. 

Henry  VI.,  King  of  England,  i.  330, 

332.  335-336,   358. 
Henry  VII.,  King  of  England,  i.  347- 

349,  359.  362-369,  372,  374,  38S. 
Henry  VIII.,  King  of  England,  acces- 
sion of,  i.  374 ;  war  with  France, 
376-377  ;  attempts  again>t  Albany, 
392,  396,  400,  403  ;  alliance  with 
Charles  V. ,  399,  400 ;  specious  pre- 
tensions of,  404-405  ;  enmity  with 
James  anent  the  Douglases,  413, 
415  ;  action  regarding  Angus,  414, 
419,  445  ;  Scottish  party  in  favour 
of,  420 ;  views  regarding  Sec  of  St 
Andrews,  381,  393,  420;  attempts 
at  a  meeting  with  James,  435-439, 
451-452;  instructions  to  Howard, 
435-436  ;  advice  to  James,  436,  447- 
448  ;  refuses  James's  return  through 
England,  439,  442 ;  persecutions, 
446  ;  demands  fugitive  heretics,  451  ; 


suzerainty  claim,  452  ;  aims  at  crown 
of  Scotland,  461,  462,  499  ;  ii.  i,  18  ; 
attempts  to  secure  Mary  Stuart,  i. 
462,  472  ;  attempts  to  bribe  Beaton, 
468  ;  baffled  by  Douglas,  z6.  ;  treaty 
for  Scottish  marriage,  468-472  ;  in- 
structions for  massacre  in  Scotland, 
476-477  ;  aims  at  trapping  Angus  and 
Douglas,  480 ;  negotiations  for  mur- 
der of  Beaton,  id. ;  treaty  with  Donald 
Dubh,  482-483,  509  ;  aims  at  trapping 
Beaton,  Arran,  or  Montgomerie, 
483  ;  intrigues  with  Beaton's  mur- 
derers, ii.  3 ;  death  of,  6  ;  tyranny 
of,  i.  422,  432  ;  perfidy  and  duplicity 
of,  375,  405,  441,  472,  473  ;  cant  of, 
436  ;  review  of  baffled  schemes  of, 
473  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  94,  386, 
395,  397.  410,  429. 

Henry,  Prince  (son  of  David  I.),  i.  102, 
104,  106-108,  128. 

Henry,  Prince  (son  of  James  VI.),  ii. 
383.  389,  506,  512. 

Henry  of  Huntingdon  cited,  i.  112, 
127. 

Hcnryson,  i.  334 ;  ii.  252. 

Hepburn,  House  of,  i.  361. 

Hepburn,  Capt.,  ii.  117. 

Hepburn,  Rev.  Mr,  iv.  128-129,  160, 
161,  195. 

Hepburn,  Patrick,  i.  325,  354. 

Hepburn,   Prior  Patrick,  i.   3S4,    393- 

394,  425,  430. 
Hepburn  of  Hailes.     Si;e  Bothwell. 
Herbary,  i.  140. 
Heresy — 

Acts  against  (1399),  i.  285,  290,  303, 

309;  (1695),  iv.  56. 
Burnings  for,  i.  290,  310,  429,  431, 

446;  ii.  14-15,  42-43,  70. 
Hamilton  averse  to  persecuting,   ii. 

28. 
Hanging  for  (1697),  iv.  57. 
James  V.'s  attitude  towards,  i.  431, 

432,   441,    445;    strengthening  of 

the  laws,  450. 
List  of  360  heretics  for  destruction, 

alleged  presentation  of,  to  James 

v.,  i.  453- 
Lollardy.     See  that  title. 
Milne  burned  for  (1558),  ii.  42,  43, 

70. 
Universities  as  bulwarks  against,   i. 

.333.   384; 
Heritable  jurisdictions,  iii.   12-13,   260, 

iv.  115;  abolition  of,  521-522. 
Heron,  Capt.  Patrick,  ii.  463. 
Heron,  Lady,  i.  377,  390. 
Heron,  Sir  John,  ii.  257. 
Herries,    Lord,    at    Langsido,   ii.    197; 

mission   to  Elizabeth,   198,    200 ;   as 


INDEX. 


575 


Mary's  Commissioner,  206  ;  attitude 
towards  the  charges  against  Mary, 
213;  seized  by  Moray,  217;  deserts 
the  Queen's  party,  242 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  232,  260,  286. 

Hertford,  Earl  of.     See  Somerset. 

Hertford,  Marquis  of,  iii.  177. 

Hessian    troops    in    the    '45,    iv.    502, 

504- 
Heth  of  Moray,  i.  101-103,  127. 
Hewat,  Rev.  Peter,  ii.  513,  558,  573- 
Hickes,  Dr,   cited,   iii.  317,  333  note, 

373- 
Hiegait,  ii.  172-173. 
Higgons,  Sir  Thos.,  iv.  180. 
Higgons  (brother  of  Sir  Thos.),  iv.  252, 

260-261. 
Highlands — 

Agricultural   backwardness,   i.    140 ; 

iv.  372-373- 
Arms  of  the  people  (1715),  iv.  193. 
"Black  Meall,"iv.  367. 
Cattle-raiding,  iv.  367,  374,  375- 
Characteristics  of  the  people,  iv.  377. 
Culture,  iv.  376-^78. 
Disaffection,  traditional,  i.  114,  116. 
Disarmament  (1725),  iv,  369. 
Dress  of  the  people — 

Abolition  of,  iv.  358-359,  52 1. 

Philabeg,  alleged  introduction  of, 
iv.  372. 
Dwellings,  iv.  373. 
Food,  iii.  151  ;  iv.  371,  372,  374. 
Fosterage,  iv.  373-374- 
Glencairn's    Rising  {1652),   iii.  265- 

266,  268-269. 
"Hounding  out"  of  the  people,  iv. 

182,  471. 
Illiteracy,  iv.  379. 
Independent  Companies,  iv.  367-368, 

375- 
Land  tenure,  i.  134;  iv.  374. 

Luinneags,  iv.  378. 

Ponies,  iv.  372. 

Roads,  military,  by  Wade,  iv.  58,  370. 

Second-sight,  iv,  378-379. 

Sgealachda,  iv.  378. 

Submission  of,  demanded  (1691),  iv. 

36;  tendered  (1714),  173. 
Tascal  money,  iv.  368. 
Towns  and  rich  abbeys,  absence  of, 

i.  9,  143-144- 
Hill,  Col.,  iv.  32,  36,  37,  40,  41,  44, 

46,  54- 
Hill  forts,  i.  64,  66. 
Hinba,  i.  68. 
'  Historic  of  the  Estate   of  Scotland ' 

cited,  ii.  48-49. 
History — 

Constitutional,  reason  for  lack  of,  i. 

145-146. 
VOL.    IV. 


Early  times,  of,  materials  for,  i.  2-3. 
Legendary,  i.  52. 
Materials  for,  lack  of,  i.  88-89. 
Picturesque   method  in,   i.   453 ;    ii, 

139- 
Hoby,  Sir  Edward,  ii,  310 
Hog,  Mr,  iv.  284-288, 
Hogg,  Mr,  iii.  19. 
Holbourne,  iii.  241,  253,  254. 
Holland- 
Covenanters'  intrigue  with  (1666),  iii. 

307- 

Peace  with  (1667),  iii.  315. 

War  with  (1653-1654),  iii.  270,  272. 
Holland,  Lord,  iii.  52,  60-62,  164. 
HoUinshed  cited,  i.  378. 
Holmes,  Major,  cited,  iii.  398  note. 
Holstein,  Duke  of,  ii.  435. 
Holt,    Father,   ii.    280-281,    290,    294, 

305.306,315;  cited,  378-379. 
Holyrood  Abbey,  ii.  11. 
Holyrood  Chapel,  i.  158. 
Homage  by  Kings  of  Scotland — 

Alexander  III. 's  (1278),  i.  124,  130. 

Balliol's,  i.  246,  249,  250. 

Cases  of,  discussed,  i.  169-170. 

David  II.'s,  i.  259. 

Henry  VIII. 's  claim  as  to,  i.  452. 

Malcolm  Canmore's,  i.  91,  93,   116, 
169. 

William  the  Lion's,  i.  94,  102,   113, 
170. 
Home,   1st  Earl  of,  ii.  286,  347,  367, 

373.  375.   376,  379.  3^4.  39o,  437. 

445.  467,  571- 
Home,  3rd  Earl  of,  iii.  27,  65,  77,  156, 

262. 
Home,  6th  Earl  of,  iv.  89,  90,  117. 
Home,  7th  Earl  of,  iv.  205. 
Home,  3rd  Lord,  i.  361,  377,  379-380, 

390,  392.  397- 
Home,  4th  Lord,  i.  40S,  420,  422. 
Home,    5th   Lord,    ii.    109,    138,    142, 

249,  250. 
Home,  Sir  Alexander  (Hume  of  North 

Berwick),  ii.  372,  418,  420,  422. 
Home,   Rev.   John,   iv.   415,   467-468, 

480;   cited,  469-470,  493-495.   507. 

513.  516,  527-528. 
Home,  Col.  Robert,  iii.  95. 
Honeyman,  Bp.  of  Orkney,  iii.  317. 
Honour-price,  i.   81,   83-84,  137,    160- 

161. 
Hooke,  Col.,  iv.  93,  117-118,  137-138, 

141-144,  146-147,  149. 
Hope,  Thos.,  ii.  485  ;  iii.  28,  32,  60, 

69,  89  note. 
Hopton,  iii.  230. 
Hosack  cited,   ii.    181,    1S4,    190,    207 

note,  566. 
Hospitals,  i.  143. 

2  O 


576 


INDEX. 


Houblon,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  139-140. 
Houston  family,  i.  308. 
Ho veden,  Roger  de,  cited,  i.  117. 
Howard,  Lord  Edward,  i.  374,  379. 
Howard,  Sir  George,  cited,  ii.  65. 
Howard,  Lord  Henry,  ii.  472. 
Howard,  Admiral  Lord  Thomas,  i.  374, 

378,  379- 
Howard,  Lord  William,  i.  435-439. 
Howard  of  Corbie  Castle,  iv.  206, 
Howitt  and  Fison,  i.  493. 
Huches,  i.  238. 
Hudson  cited,  ii.  356,  462. 
Hudson  (Charles  I.'s  chaplain)  cited, 

iii.  174. 
Hugh,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews,  i.  114. 
Hugh  (Aodh),  King,  i.  43. 
Hughes,  Mrs,  iv.  338,  348. 
Hume,  Lord,  i.  350,  359. 
Hume,  David,  iv.  322,  398. 
Hume,  Sir  George.     See  Dunbar, 
Hume,  Hon.  James,  iv.  205. 
Hume,  Major  Martin,  ii.  285,  370,  389 

note. 
Hume  of  Crossrig,  Hume  of  Polwarth, 

&c.     See  Crossrig,  Polwarth,  &c. 
Hundred  Years'  War,  i.  253-254. 
Hunsdon,  Lord,  Earl  of  Northumber- 
land   sold    to,  ii.  242 ;    schemes  to 

separate  James  from  Mary,  304 ;  on 

James,    307  ;    on    Arran,    308-310 ; 

negotiations    with    Arran,    308-309 ; 

cited,  225,  227,  240,  389 ;  otherwise 

mentioned,  268,  270,  340. 
Hunter,  Prof.,  cited,  iv.  403,  411. 
Hunter,  John,  iv.  205,  206. 
Huntingdon,  Earl  of,  ii.  257-258,  286. 
Huntingdon,  Scottish  possession  of,  i. 

102,  no,  115,  128. 
Huntly,  House  of,  i.  371. 
Huntly,   1st  Earl  of  (Sir  A.   Seton  of 

Gordon),  i.  325,  330. 
Huntly,  2nd  Earl  of,  i.  342,  349,  350, 

368. 
Huntly,  3rd  Earl  of,  i.  372,  379,  392, 

397,  398. 

Huntly,  4th  Earl  of,  Forbes  accused 
liy,  i.  443;  Regent,  460;  wavering 
treason  of,  ii.  2,  14  ;  made  Chan- 
cellor, 3  ;  Pinkie,  lo-ii;  execution 
of  Clan  Chattan  ca]5lain,  17,  24  ; 
trial  of  Wallace,  19  ;  temporises,  64  ; 
joins  Protestants,  65  ;  <i]iholds  the 
mass,  95  ;  overthrown  by  Mary,  117- 
121  ;  career  of,  23,  24;  perfidy  of, 
97,  117  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  452, 
465,469,  508  ;  ii.  17,  35.  55-  63,  109. 

Huntly,  5th  Earl  of,  attLmi)ts  to  ruin 
Moray,  ii.  165;  "  I'roteslation  of 
Huiiily  and  Argyll,"  170-172;  band 
to  murder  Damley,  182,  195  ;  Mary's 


distrust  of,  185 ;  taken  with  Mary 
by  Bothwell,  ib. ;  of  Maiy's  party, 
190 ;  treachery  of,  192 ;  surrenders 
to  Moray,  217;  checked  by  Lennox, 
231  ;  death  of,  261. 
Huntly,  1st  Marquess  of,  intrigue  of,  with 
Guise,  ii.  320,  322,  334;  intrigue 
with  Spain,  335,  340,  343  ;  dallies 
with  the  Kirk,  342  ;  Spanish  money 
for,  intercepted  by  Bruce,  344,  408  ; 
warded  and  released,  344 ;  James's 
affection  for,  ib.,  346  ;  again  warded, 
346,  347  ;  released,  347,  348  ;  feud 
with  Earl  Moray,  348,  351,  355-356; 
murders  him,  357 ;  allowed  to  escape, 
358  ;  the  Spanish  Blanks,  363-364 ; 
to  rescue  James,  375  ;  offers  trial  for 
Spanish  Blanks  affair,  380-382  ;  for- 
feited, 388 ;  battle  of  Glenrinnes, 
391-393;  leaves  Scotland,  395;  re- 
turns to  Scotland,  410 ;  submission 
to  the  Kirk,  429-430;  feud  with 
Moray  and  Argyll  pacified,  475, 
478 ;  takes  unkindly  to  conversion, 
476  ;  excommunicated,  493;  absolved 
by  Abp.  of  Canterbury,  511  ;  com- 
missioned to  quiet  the  Highlands, 
526,  532  ;  offer  as  to  coinaj^e,  553 ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  2S0,  281,  292, 

437.  494- 

Huntly,  2nd  Marquess  of,  Lieutenant 
of  the  north,  iii.  42 ;  not  joined  by 
Hamilton's  forces,  52-54 ;  fortifies 
Aberdeen,  54 ;  Hamilton's  instruc- 
tions to,  ib.,  55  note;  negotiations 
with  Montrose,  54,  55  ;  disbands  his 
troops,  55  ;  carried  off  by  Montrose, 
56-57,  75  note  ;  baulks  Royalist  plan 
(1643),  108;  jealous  of  Montrose, 
I11-112,  116;  "bustling"  in  the 
north,  II4-I16;  continually  thwarts 
Montrose,  159;  imprisoned,  185; 
Charles's  efforts  for,  186  ;  executed, 
208,  209  ;  estates  conveyed  to  Argyll, 
209  note ;  Hamilton's  estimate  of, 
42  note,  54  ;  Charles's  estimate  of,  56, 
75  note;  otherwise  mentioned,  29, 
49.  69,  74,  120,  123,  128,  145,  147  ; 
iv.  270. 

Huntly,  3rd  Marquess  of  (Lord  Lewis 
Gordon),  against  Montrose,  iii.  126, 
128  ;  with  him,  137,  141-147  ;  leaves 
him,  156,  159;  capitulates  to  Monk, 
261  ;  otiierwise  mentioned,  57,  58, 
247,  270. 

Huntly,  son  of  1st  Duke  of  Gordon. 
See  Gordon,  2nd  Duke  of. 

Huntly,  Lady  (wife  of  4th  Earl),  ii. 
1 1 7- 1 18,  120. 

Huntly,  Lady  (wife  of  ist  Marquess), 
ii.  404,  408,  410,  413;  iii.  91. 


INDEX. 


577 


Iluntly,  Lady  (wife  of  3rd  Marquess), 
iv.  146. 

Iluntly,  Lady  Jane  (Lady  Bothwell),  ii. 
159,  160,  186. 

Iluntly,  Lord  George,  ii.  148,  151, 
162,  170. 

Hurry,  Col.  Sir  John,  on  "the  In- 
cident," iii.  93-96;  seizes  Montrose's 
•son,  137  ;  at  Auldearn,  141 -144  ;  with 
Montrose  176,  213;  executed,  230; 
otherwise  mentioned,  132,  136-138, 
149,  190. 

Hussites,  i.  308,  310. 

Hutcheson,  Prof.  Francis,  iv.  309,  405. 

Hutchinson  (preacher),  iii.  228,  317, 
318. 

Hyde,  Dr,  cited,  i.  494. 

Hyndford  (Carmichael),  iv.  33,  50,  80, 

83. 

Icolmkill,  Band  of,  ii.  53O. 
Ida,  i.  30. 

Imperialism,  English,  i.  171. 
Imports — 

Excess  of,  over  exports,  ii.  555. 

Restrictions  on,  ii.  554. 
Inchbrakie,    Patrick    Graham    of,    iii. 

119,  247,  294. 
Independence,  Scottish  struggle  for,  i. 

159,  160,  171.     {See  also  War  of  In- 
dependence.) 
Independents — 

Charles  I.'s  negotiations  with,  iii. 
164,  166,  169  ;  Charles  in  hands 
of,  183  ;  his  undertaking  to  sup- 
press,  185. 

Westminster  Synod,  at,  iii.  1 10,  115. 
Indulf,  King,  i.  49. 
Ingebiorge,  i.  90. 
Ingles,  James,  cited,  i.  425. 
Innes,  Capt.,  iv.  209. 
Innes,  Cosmo,  cited,  i.   139,   152,  272, 

327,  419- 
Innes,    Father  Thos.,  ii.    79  ;    iv.    176, 
237,   250,  260,   326,  424;   cited,    i. 

19- 

Innocent  VIII.,  Pope,  i.  365. 

Inverawe,  Campbell  of  (1640),  iii.  75. 

Inverawe,  Campbell  of  (1745),  iv.  459. 

Invercauld,  Farquharson  of,  iv.  208. 

Inverlochy  fortress.    See  Fort  William. 

Invernahyle,  Stewart  of,  iv.  470. 

Inverness,  Earl  of  (John  Hay),  in  the 
'15,  iv.  185;  Secretary  to  James  VIII. , 
260,  332  ;  James's  Minister,  335,  347  ; 
hated,  261  ;  desires  to  resign,  352  ; 
resigns,  353 ;  becomes  Roman  Catho- 
lic, 424  ;  cited,  348,  349  ;  Lockhart's 
estimate  of,  354,  355. 

Inverness,  Lady,  iv.  350-353. 

Inverquharity,  Ogilvy  of  (1445),  i.  325. 


Inverquharity,  Ogilvy  of,  iii.  161. 
lona — 

Columba's  remains  removed  from,  i, 
42,  57. 

Missionary  settlement  in,  i.  31. 
Ireland  — 

Agricola's  relations  with,  i.  6. 

Brehon  laws,  i.  87. 

Bruce,  Edward,  adventure  of  (1315), 
i.  226. 

Bruce,  Robert,  invasion  by  (1327),  i. 

233- 
Celtic  religion  of,  i.  23,  494. 
Chiefs  from,  at  Bannockburn,  i.  217, 
Derry,  siege  of,  iv.  13-14. 
Ecclesiastical  animosities  in,  i.  97. 
Fairies  of,  i.  23,  24,  495. 
"  Free  "  and  "  Unfree"  in,  i.  79. 
Glamorgan  treaty  (1646),  iii.  168. 
Olaf  in,  i.  49. 
Palladius  sent  to,  i.  25-26. 
Rebellion  (1641),  iii.  loo-ioi. 
St  Patricius  in,  i.  26-27. 
Scots  from,  i.  12. 
Scottish  aid  to  Irish  rebels,  i.  417, 

418. 
Synod  of  Cashel,  i.  97. 
Tartan  in,  i.  23. 

Tyrone's  rebellion,  ii.  397,  434,  475. 
Ulster- 
Massacres  in  the  rebellion  (1641), 

iii.  loo-ioi. 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion  in,  ii,  529. 
Plantation  of,  ii.  505,  529. 
Ireland,  Dr,  i.  343,  359. 
Irvine,  peace  at  (1297),  i.  181. 
Irving,   Sir  Alexander,   of  Drum,    iii. 

263-264. 
Isla  (Isles),  House  of — 

"  Auld  enemies  of  Scotland, "  i.  iio, 

123.  343- 

War  of  Independence,  in,  i.  495. 
Isla,  Alexander  of,  i.  398,  417. 
Isla,  Angus  of,  i.  122. 
Isla,   Angus   Og   of,   i.   208-209,   217- 

219.  234,  235,  238,  495.-496. 
Isla,  James  Macdonald  of,  i.  509. 
Isla,  John  of,  i.  366. 
Islay,  Campbell  of,  cited,  iv.  378, 
Islay,  Earl  of.     See  Argyll,  3rd  Duke 

of. 
Isles — 

Cession  of  Western  Isles  by  Norway, 
i.  123. 

Confederacy,  breaking  of  (1506),   i. 

371- . 
Icolmkill,  Band  of,  ii.  530. 

Lordship  of  the — 

Forfeiture    of,    under   James    IV. 

(1493-1494).  i-  366,  507. 
Lapse  of  (1546),  i.  509. 


578 


INDEX. 


Isles,  Alastair  of  the,  i.  304-305. 

Isles,  Alastair  of  Lochalsh  of  the,  i. 
366. 

Isles,  Alexander  of  the,  i.  302. 

Isles,  Angus  Mor  Macdonald  of  the 
(1286),  i.   163. 

Isles,  Angus  Og  of  the,  i.  338,  343, 
366,  482,  507-5o8._ 

Isles,  Donald  of  the,  i.  291-292,  299. 

Isles,  Duncan,  Archdeacon  of  the,  i. 
336. 

Isles,  John  of  the  (Earl  of  Ross),  pos- 
sessions of,  i.  253,  256  ;  insubordina- 
tion of,  264,  266. 

Isles,  John  of  the  (Earl  of  Ross)  (1449), 
takes  Urquhart  Castle,  i.  330  ;  Treaty 
of  Westminster-Ardtornish,  336-337, 
507  ;  deprived  of  territory',  342,  343  ; 
forfeited,  366  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 

327.  328,  331,  332,  344. 
Isles,   Maclean  of  Lochbuy  of  the,  i. 

366. 
Isles,  Ranald  of  the,  i.  336. 

Jacobites — 

Activity  of,  iv.  255. 

"Association"    of  (1741),    iv.    436- 

437,  439- 
Cameronian  relations   with,  iv.    124- 

125,    127,    14S-146,    150,    161. 
Ciphers  of,  iv.  355.  _ 
Distrust    and    divisions    among,    iv. 

143-144. 
English,  character  of,  iv.  457,  463, 

473.  474- 
Episcopalian     ecclesiastics     among, 

iii.  415  ;  iv.  326  et  seq. 
Female  counsellors  among,  iv.   138, 

^74- 

France,  relations  with,  iv.  117,  137- 
138,  141,  146-147,  233,  237,  244, 
252,  262,  437,  442,  447-448,  451. 
463,  472-474,  506,  521  ;  expedi- 
tion of  1708,  148-149;  Mar's 
Memorial  to  d'Orleans,  342-345. 

Ker's  relations  with,  iv.  142-143. 

Optimism  of,  iv.  249,  258. 

Patronage  abused  by,  iv.  291. 

Quarrels  among,  iv.  211,  335-337, 
347,  354  ;  Irish  and  Scots  at  vari- 
ance, 458,  464. 

Rising  of  17 15 — 

Blunders  in,  iv.  176-179. 
Borderers' dissensions,  iv.  205-206. 
Chief  persons  engaged  in,  iv.  204- 

205. 
Edinburgh  Castle  assailed,  iv.  182- 

Executions  following,  iv.  210,  238- 

240. 
Forces  engaged  in,  iv.  184-185. 


Hopelessness  of,  iv.  173,  177. 

James's  arrival,  iv.  222,  224 ;  his 
flight,  228-229. 

Kenmure  and  Forster,  rising  of,  iv. 
195-196. 

Macgregor  feats,  iv.  192-193. 

Mackintosh's  movements,  iv.  197- 
198. 

Mar's  movements  and  dilatoriness, 
iv.  182,  184-185,  189-191,  200, 
211. 

Ormonde's  flight,  iv.  180. 

Preparations  for,  iv.  174-175. 

Preston,  iv.  207-210. 

Prisoners  taken  during,  iv.  210. 

Quarrels  at  Perth,  iv.  211. 

Sheriffmuir,  iv.  216-218. 

Sinclair's  raid,  iv.  194. 

Spanish  assistance,  iv.  173,  181. 
Rising  of  1719 — the  Spanish  expedi- 
tion, iv.  262-273. 
Rismg  of  1745,  iv.  457  et  seq.  ;  "No 

quarter"  forgery,  517,525;  results 

of  the  Rising,  521. 
Union  with  England — 

Highland  coup  against,  arrange- 
ments for,  iv.  123-126. 

Position  at  time  of,  iv.  117-118. 
Jacobitism,  Macky  on,  iv.  420. 
Jaffray,  Alexander,  iii.  208,  228  ;  cited, 

127. 
James  I.,  King,  in  captivity,  i.  292  ; 
prepares  for  French  expedition,  293  ; 
ransom  of,  295,  301  ;  released  and 
crowned,  295  ;  policy,  300  ;  legisla- 
tion, 301  ;  seizure  of  nobles,  302-303, 
311  ;  frequent  Parliaments,  303;  re- 
lations with  the  Church,  309,  310; 
death  and  estimate  of,  313-315; 
heart  of,  320. 
James  II.,  King,  birth  of,  i.  309; 
authorities  for  reign  of,  320,  354 ; 
coronation,  320;  Boece's  legend,  321 ; 
stolen  by  Crichton  from  Livingstone 
and  recovered,  322-323  ;  marriage 
with  Mary  of  Gueldres,  326 ;  rela- 
tions with  Sth  Earl  of  Douglas,  327- 
328  ;  land  reform,  327 ;  murder  of 
Douglas,  328-329  ;  relations  with  9th 
Earl  of  Douglas,  331-332;  Border 
raid  (1456),  332  ;  death  and  estimate 

of,  333- 
James  III.,  King,  minority  of,  i.  333, 
coronation,  334  ;  married  to  Margaret 
of  Norway,  340 ;  affair  of  Bp.  Graham, 
340-342;  abducted,  341,  357;  un- 
popularity, 342 ;  interest  in  astro- 
logy, ib.,  344,  358;  arrested  by 
Angus,  345 ;  intrigues  with  Louis 
XL,  344;  negotiations  for  F'nglish 
marriages,  347-348;    "The  Daisy," 


INDEX. 


579 


350,  352,  360 ;  rebellion  of  son  and 
nobles,  349-35°;  <^leath  of,  351; 
reward  ottered  fur  murderers  of,  365  ; 
estimate  of,  351-353.  359-3^0;  char- 
acteristics of,  334  ;  favourites  of,  343, 
346,  359.  ii-  13^;  charges  against,  i. 
352-353.  358-360. 

James  IV.,  King,  birth  of,  i.  342; 
marriage  project,  347 ;  rebellion 
against  his  father,  349-350;  acces- 
sion, 361  ;  coronation,  362  ;  pofxi- 
larity,  ib. ;  care  for  the  navy,  363  ; 
plots  against,  364-365  ;  trouble  with 
Celts,  366 ;  supports  Perkin  War- 
beck,  367-369,  387  ;  signs  truce  with 
England,  370 ;  again  visits  the  Isles, 
371  ;  imprisons  Donald  Dubh,  il>., 
508  ;  supports  France,  373-375  ;  war 
with  England  (1513),  376-377  ;  F'od- 
den,  378-380,  389-390  ;  death  of,  380, 
381  ;  estimate  of,  382-383  ;  charges 
against,  358. 

James  V.,  King,  birth  of,  i.  374;  at 
thirteen,  404;  "erection,"  406; 
legal  majority  proclaimed  (1526), 
409  ;  attempts  at  escape,  410;  escapes 
to  Stirling,  412  ;  training  and  educa- 
tion, 413;  expulsion  of  Angus  and 
the  Douglases,  413-415,  ii.  154;  re- 
lations with  Celtic  nobles,  417-418; 
murder  of,  planned  by  Finnart  (1529), 
505,  506  ;  attitude  towards  heretics, 
431,  432;  attempted  reform  of  the 
clergy,  433,  450  ;  proposed  marriage 
with  Mary  of  Bourbon,  435,  437  ; 
Henry  VIII. 's  advice,  436,  447-448  ; 
reply  to  Henry's  letter,  436 ;  desire 
to  marry  Margaret  Erskine,  438,  440, 
505 ;  goes  to  France,  441,  505  ; 
marriage  with  Madeleine  of  France, 
442  ;  execution  of  Forbes,  443  ;  case 
of  Lady  Glamis,  443-445  ;  marriage 
with  Mary  of  Guise,  445  ;  attempted 
arrest  of  Buchanan,  446  ;  troubles 
with  the  nobles,  447  ;  relations  with 
Finnart,  450,  504-506  ;  circumnavi- 
gates Scotland,  450 ;  death  of  his 
two  sons,  450-451  ;  strengthens  laws 
against  heresy,  450;  negotiations  with 
Henry  after  Hadden  Rig,  452 ;  Sol- 
way  Moss,  453,  455  ;  death  of,  455- 
456,459-461  ;  characteristics  of,  409  ; 
story  of  forged  will  of,  460-461,  466- 
467,  491. 

James  VI.,  King,  birth  of,  ii.  165  ; 
Darnley's  plot  to  kidnap,  alleged, 
1 70- 1 71  ;  baptism  of,  172  ;  legend  of 
the  apple,  184;  band  for  crowning 
(April  1567),  1 86- 187  ;  coronation, 
192;  education  in  England  demanded 
by  Elizabeth,  213-214  ;  Lennox's  re- 


quest to  Elizabeth  regarding,  227 ; 
poisoned  against  his  mother,  233  ; 
Mar  obtains  guardianship  of,  261  ; 
attitude  towards  the  Hamiltons,  264  ; 
Mary's  letters  kept  from,  by  Morton, 
ill.;  visit  to  Edinburgh  (1579),  265; 
dislike  of  Morton,  266 ;  ])lots  and 
counter -plots  to  seize,  266-267; 
theological  zeal,  266,  275 ;  hatred 
of  the  Kirk,  278;  "Association" 
scheme,  ih.,  291,  305,  308;  Spanish 
and  French  plots  regarding,  280- 
282 ;  Walsingham's  plot  against, 
281  ;  rebuked  by  Durie,  284  ;  seized 
in  the  Raid  of  Ruthven,  285-288 ; 
Huntingdon's  assassination  plot 
against,  286  ;  Lennox's  plot  to  seize, 
287  ;  desertion  and  treachery  towards 
his  mother,  291,  306,  309,  312  ;  free 
of  the  raiders,  292 ;  threatened  by 
a  preacher,  293 ;  letter  to  Guise, 
293-294 ;  reprisals  on  the  raiders, 
288,  295  ;  letter  to  the  Pope,  296, 
308-309,  501-503,  521  ;  overthrows 
the  Kirk,  299-300;  makes  grants  to 
Lords  of  Erection,  iv.  158;  Jock 
Grahame's  allegation  as  to,  ii.  310- 
311  ;  surrenders  to  exiled  nobles 
at  Stirling,  316;  altercation  with 
Rev.  Mr  Balcan(]ual,  317  ;  restores 
Andrew  Melville  for  a  consider.ition, 
319 ;  Mary's  plot  to  seize,  320 ;  friend- 
ship with  Archibald  Douglas,  320- 
321  ;  alleged  indifference  to  his 
mother's  fate,  327,  334  ;  signs  league 
with  England,  320 ;  desires  solitary 
confinement  for  his  mother,  322, 
323,  325 ;  keenness  on  English  suc- 
cession, 324,  338,  471  ;  desires 
prayers  for  his  mother,  330 ;  keen- 
ness on  Lennox  estates  in  England, 
336,  471  ;  refuses  to  lead  an  expedi- 
tion against  England,  337  ;  attitude 
towards  Spanish  Armada,  340,  342  ; 
on  .St  Andrews  University,  559 ; 
proceeds  against  Morton  (^laxwell), 
341  ;  hears  of  Huntly's  plot,  343  ; 
weary  of  life,  344  ;  pursues  his  rebels, 
345-346 ;  marri;ige  with  Anne  of 
Denmark.,  348 ;  murder  of  Earl 
Moray,  355-359  ;  harassed  by  Both- 
well,  361  ;  recalls  Arran,  362  ; 
threatened  with  excommunication, 
ib.;  the  Spanish  Blanks,  363,  364, 
366 ;  relations  with  Catholic  nobles, 

367,  370,  373.  3S0-3S1,  3^.  395. 
468  ;  seized  by  Bothwell  and  Colville, 

368,  371-373;  attempts  escape,  374- 
375  ;  escapes,  376  ;  inclines  to  toler- 
ation, 375,  378-379 ;  descends  on 
AthoU   conspiracy,    379-380  ;    defer 


58o 


INDEX. 


trial  of  Catholic  nobles,  381-382; 
the  Act  of  Abolition,  382-383  ;  tries 
to  check  Bothvvell's  advance,  384  ; 
scatters  Catholic  rebels,  393;  orders 
a  wapinschaw,  398  ;  alleged  intrigue 
with  the  Pope  and  Spain,  403-404, 
409,  439-440,  467,  521  ;  stipulates 
for  private  admonitions,  404-405 ; 
truckles  to  Andrew  Melville,  411; 
case  of  Mr  Black,  412-413,  415-416  ; 
the  Kirk  riot,  417-419;  vigorous 
measures,  422-423  ;  summons  Kirk 
convention  at  Perth,  428 ;  '  The 
True  Law  of  Free  Monarchies,'  437  ; 
'  Basilikon  Doron,'  437-439  ;  upholds 
play  -  actors,  441  ;  Dr  Cecil's  book 
against,  443-444;  relations  with 
young  Gowrie,  446 ;  tries  to  bully 
Parliament,  447  ;  the  Gowrie  con- 
spiracy (1600),  449-464;  sends  Mar 
and  Kinloss  ambassadors  to  England, 
470-471  ;  correspondence  with  Cecil, 
472-473 ;  interview  with  Robert 
Bruce,  474  ;  improved  relations  with 
Elizabeth,  475  ;  succeeds  to  English 
throne,  477  ;  establishes  force  of  con- 
stabulary, 479  ;  Hampton  Court  Con- 
ference, 480  ;  the  Assembly  of  Aber- 
deen, 481-487  ;  unscrupulous  deal- 
ings with  the  Kirk,  488;  maltreat- 
ment of  the  Melvilles,  489-491  ; 
convention  of  Linlithgow,  491  ;  re- 
pressive policy,  492-493  ;  Somerset 
affair,  499 ;  desire  for  real  union  of 
the  countries,  499-500 ;  fall  of  Bal- 
merino,  503;  on  the  "hotch-potch" 
of  the  General  Assembly,  511  ;  the 
Five  Articles  of  Perth,  z7'.,  513-517  ; 
visits  Scotland  (1617),  512  ;  inter- 
view with  preachers,  513-514;  on 
extempore  prayers,  81  ;  on  Sunday 
amusements,  514 ;  death  of,  518- 
519;  alleged  illegitimacy  of,  307, 
331  ;  estimate  of,  519-520  ;  charac- 
teristics of,  269,  289,  306,  477-47S  ; 
as  a  boy,  263 ;  absolutism  and 
tyranny  of,  ih.,  299,  304,  427,  438  ; 
Protestantism  of,  275,  278,  291,  334- 
335.  338,  342,  440;  religious  toler- 
ance in  theory,  478-479,  502  :  rapid 
development  of  religious  views,  509  ; 
love  of  sport,  306,  316,  477; 
langua;^e  of,  404  ;  learning  of,  520, 
561  ;  alleged  vices  of,  348  ;  witch- 
burnings  by,  295,  352-353,  431-432, 
549 ;  general  policy  towards  the 
Kirk,  426-427;  persecutions  by,  501, 
518  ;  Enj^lish  fulsome  naltcry  of, 
472  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  237,  260, 
269,  2S4,  399,  434,  435,  445,  545, 
55'- 


James  VIL,  King,  birth  of,  iii.  2; 
Commissioner  in  Parliament  (1681), 
366 ;  excepted  from  the  Test  Act, 
367-368 ;  takes  no  Scottish  coronation 
oath,  385  ;  policy  of  toleration,  391- 
392,  408-410  ;  suppresses  Protestant 
publications,  413 ;  flight,  414 ;  de- 
posed, 422;  in  Ireland,  iv.  13-14;, 
degeneracy,  21  ;  paper  from,  tam- 
pered with  by  Skelmorley,  30  ;  death 
of,  77 ;  characteristics  of,  iii.  369, 
385  ;  religioii  of,  320,  322,  326,  364, 
381  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  356,  360, 
378,  419  ;  iv.  15. 

James  VIII.,  King  (Chevalier  de  St 
George),  birth  of,  iii.  412  ;  recognised 
king  by  France,  iv.  77 ;  Oath  of 
Abjuration  against,  83,  154,  156- 
157,  159,  289-290,  327  ;  negotiations 
with  Duke  of  Hamilton,  88  ;  negoti- 
ations with  Jacobites  through  Col. 
Hooke,  117-118,  137-138;  off  the 
Scottish  coast,  141  ;  expedition  from 
Dunkirk  (1708),  148-149;  scheme 
for  conversion  of,  165-166;  his  re- 
fusal, 167-168  ;  reward  offered  for, 
170,  183  ;  letter  on  George's  acces- 
sion, 173-174;  rising  of  1715,  176, 
185-187,  219,  220;  Mar's  commis- 
sion, 176-177  ;  communications  to 
Berwick  and  Bolingbroke,  178-179; 
breach  with  Berwick,  186,  187,  22 ; ; 
journey  to  Norman  coast,  187-189; 
on  Lovat,  213  ;  hears  of  Sheriffmuir, 
219,  221  ;  lands  at  Peterhead,  222 ; 
receives  Mar's  account  of  affairs, 
224;  "captured"  by  Mar,  225; 
melancholy  and  discouragement,  226, 
227 ;  flight,  228-229 ;  the  burning 
of  villages,  228-229 ;  pensions  sup- 
porters, 232  ;  irritation  against  Bol- 
ingbroke, 234  ;  discharges  him,  233  ; 
letter  to  Due  de  Lorraine,  236-237  ; 
settled  at  Avignon,  237;  plots  against, 
46,  245-24S ;  'The  Hue  and  Cry,' 
250 ;  illness,  252 ;  leaves  Avignon 
for  Italy,  253 ;  relations  with  his 
motlier,  256,  260-261  ;  confidence  in 
Mar,  260,  269,  278,  336 ;  goes  to 
Spain,  265 ;  returns  to  Italy,  273, 
278  ;  marriage  with  Princess  Clem- 
entina Sobieska,  277-278  ;  relations 
with  Episcopalian  clerg)-,  328-334 ; 
appoints  Hay  in  place  of  Mar,  335  ; 
on  Mar's  memorial  to  Duke  of 
Orleans,  342,  345  ;  straitened  means, 
346 ;  pacifies  a  feud,  i.  371  ;  iv, 
347  ;  difficulties  with  his  wife,  347- 
353,  426  ;  honourable  conduct  in  the 
Inverness  scandal,  350  ;  goes  to 
Avignon,   354 ;    leaves,   455 ;    move- 


INDEX. 


581 


menis  on  death  of  George  I.,  423- 
424  ;  death  of  Clementina,  427  ; 
communications  with  Carte,  436 ; 
letter  to  Louis  XV.,  444;  corres- 
pondence with  Prince  Charles,  449, 
451,  452,  459,  469,  473  ;  estimate  of, 
138;  characteristics,  168-169,  186, 
256,  348,  422  ;  personal  appearance, 
169 ;  misrepresentation,  342,  345- 
346  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  ii.  536  ; 
iv.  133,  164,  244,  259,  261-262,  371, 

437-  438,  441,  442. 
James,    Prince   (son   of  Robert    III.), 

i.  284,  288-289,   298,  299. 
James  de  la  Cloche,  iii.  398. 
Jamieson   (ballad  collector)   cited,    iv. 

370,  374- 
Jamieson  (portrait-painter),  iv.  415. 

Jamison,  Rev.  ,  iii.  355. 

Jarls,  i.  151. 

Jeanne  d'Arc,  i.  308,  317,  332;  Mon- 
trose compared  with,  iii.  211,  220, 
221. 

Jedburgh,  Dacre  and  Surrey  at,  i.  401- 
402. 

Jedburgh  Abbey,  i.  483. 

Jedburgh  Castle,  i.  290. 

Jeddart  justice,  ii.  523. 

Jerdan,  ii.  263,  270. 

Jersey,  Lady,  iv.  174,  175. 

Jerviswood,  Baillie  of,  iii.  329,  375- 
379;  iv.  83,  84,  97,  98,  loi,  III, 
143.  159,  289;  cited,  153. 

Jewel,  Bp.,  ii.  431. 

Joanna,  Queen  (wife  of  Alexander  II.), 
i.  119,  120. 

Joanna,  Queen  (wife  of  David  II.),  i. 
233.  234.  246,  255. 

John,  Don,  of  Austria,  ii.  215. 

John,  King  of  England,  i.  117-II9. 

John  XXII.,  Pope,  Scottish  remon- 
strance to,  i.  230 ;  Bruce  recognised 
as  king  by,  232 ;  Bruce  allowed 
anointing  by,  242  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 227,  228,  229. 

John  Balliol,  King,  genealogy  of,  i. 
173 ;  summoned  by  Edward  I.  of 
England,  94  ;  claim  to  throne,  167, 
172-175  ;  relations  with  Edward  I., 
113,  165,  175-176;  alliance  with 
France,  177  ;  war  with  Edward, 
178;  resigns  the  Kingdom,  il>.  ; 
Wallace's  rising  for,  185  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  124,  147,  155,  163,  495. 

John  of  Argyll,  i.  2IO. 

John  of  Brittany,  i.  200,  20I,  212. 

John  of  Fordun.     See  Fordun. 

John  of  Gaunt,  i.  266-267,  276-277, 
290. 

John  of  Wallingford  cited,  i.  51. 

Johnson,  Dr  Samuel,  ii.  85  ;  iv.  401. 


Johnson  of  Westraw,  ii.  160. 

Johnston,  Col.,  iii.  58,  59. 

Johnston,  Laird  of,  i.  415;  ii.  6. 

Johnston,  Sir  James,  ii.  524. 

Johnstone,  Chevalier,  cited,  ii.  549 ;  iv. 
468,  469,  481,  490,  494. 

Johnstone,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  21. 

Johnstone,  Secretary,  letters  of,  to 
Jerviswood,  iv.  83,  84 ;  employed  by 
Godolphin,  97  ;  Lord  Register,  98- 
99  ;  estimate  of,  98  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 61,  63,  106. 

Johnstone,  Sir  Patrick,  iv.  119,  120, 
126. 

Johnstone  of  Waristoun.  &c  Waristoun. 

Jonstone,  ii.  561. 

Judicature,  &c. — 

Administration  of  justice,  i.  148-152. 
Advocates  for  poor  suitors,  i.  303. 
College  of  Justice,   institution  of,  i. 

450- 
Counsel  for  those  accused  of  treason, 

ii-  337,  368. 
Court  of  Daily  Council,  establishment 

of,  i.  385. 
Declinature  of  jurisdiction,   ii.   413- 

416,  485-487- 
English  reform  of  (1652),  iii.  263. 
Fifteen,  The,  iii.  260. 
Grand  Justiciaries,  i.  150. 
Heritable  jurisdictions.  See  that  title. 
Justice,  Supreme  Court  of,  origin  of, 

i.  267. 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  establishment 

of  (1610),  ii.   505  ;  system  revised 

(1655),  iii.  274. 
King's  Court,  constitution  of,  i.  146, 

150. 
King's   pleas  (pleas  of  the  Crown), 

i.  150. 
Overawing  of  justice,  i.  149 ;  ii.  47, 

131,  140,  181,  224,  381  ;  iii.  36. 
Session,  Court  of,  establishment  of, 

i.    304 ;  Charles  I.'s  alteration  in 

constitution  of,   iii.   8-9,   II. 
Torture    for    evidence.       See    under 

Torture. 
Trial  by  battle,  i.  149-150,  161,  317, 

506. 
Union   Treaty  as  affecting,  iv.    115- 

116. 
yugetncnt  del  Pais,  i.  150. 
Julius  II.,  Pope,  i.  373,  374. 
Jusserand  cited,  i.  299,  318. 
Justices.     See  wWfr  Judicature. 

"  Katherans,"  i.  284. 
Katherine  of  Aragon,  Queen,  i.  368. 
Katherine,   Princess  (daughter  of  Ed- 
ward I  v.),  i.  347. 
Kay,  Clan,  i.  285. 


$82 


INDEX. 


Keir,  Stirling  of  (1488),  i.  351. 

Keir,  Stirling  of  (1640),  imprisoned,  iii. 
89  ;  brought  before  Parliament,  91  ; 
with  Montrose,  156  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 74,  87,  114. 

Keir,  Stirling  of,  iv.  199. 

Keith,  Bp.,  cited,  ii.  74,  78,  79,  155. 

Keith,  Bp.  Robert,  iv.  333. 

Keith,  Earls  Marischal.    See  Marischal. 

Keith,  Marshal,  reception  of,  by  Maty 
of  Modena,  iv.  232  ;  Spanish  expedi- 
tion (1719),  265,  269,  271,  273;  cited, 
229  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  182,  199, 
211,  436. 

Keith,  William  (1333),  i.  248. 

Keith,  William  (1587),  ii.  324-327. 

Keith,  William  (1704),  iv.  96. 

Keith,  William  de  (1334),  i.  249. 

Keith  the  Marischal,  i.  190,  218,  222, 
239,  248,  258. 

Kellie,  Lord,  iv.  315. 

Kelly,  Rev.  George,  iv.  337-338,  340, 
341,  449,  452,  457. 

Kelso  Abbey,  i.  453,  483. 

Kenmure,  Viscount,  iv.  14,  147,  182, 
200,  204,  210,  226,  239 ;   rising  of, 

195-  ,  ^    ... 

Kenmure  (Kenmuir),  Gordons  of,  111. 
268,  269,  271,  272,   370;  iv.  195. 

Kennedy,  family  of,  i.  136,  160,  308. 

Kennedy,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews,  made 
Chancellor,  i.  324 ;  curse  of,  325  ; 
influence  of,  326  ;  befriends  Douglas, 
337  ;  defeats  him,  338  ;  Lancastrian 
sympathies  of,  335-336  ;  despatch  to 
Louis  XL,  356;  estimate  of,  33S- 
339  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  340,  351, 

354,  357.  459- 
Kennedy,  Lord,  1.  334,  339,  340,  348, 

357- 
Kennedy,  Master  of  (1597),  11.  543. 
Kennedy,  Moderator,  iv.  33. 
Kennedy,  Lieut.  Gilbert,  iv.  54. 
Kennedy,  Sir  Hugh,  of  Ardstinchar,  i. 

294,  308. 
Kennedy,  Quentin,  ii.  45-46,  118,  126. 
Kenneth  MacAlpine,  King,  nationality 

of,  i.  3637  ;  "se  of,  36-37,  39 ;  reign 

of,  41-42  ;  dynasty  of,  55-57. 
Kenneth  II.,  King,  i.  50,  52,  499. 
Kenneth  III.,  King,  i.  52. 
Kentigern,  St,  i.  28,  31-32,  39. 
Kcppoch  (1545).  >•  509- 
Keppoch,  Angus  Ban  of,  at  CuUoden, 

iv.  53I-532. 
Kcppoch,    Macdonald    of    (1690),    iv. 

36,  40;  plundcrings  by,  8,  12,  215, 

220. 
Kcppoch,    Macdonald    of    (1745),    iv. 

499,    S20;    at    Culloden,    508,    513, 

527-535- 


Keppoch,  John  MacDonell  of,  notes  by, 

iv.  531-532. 
Keppoch,    Miss  Josephine    Macdonell 

of,  cited,  iv.  531,  534. 
Keppoch,  Ranald  Macdonell  of,  iv,  532. 
Ker,  Lord,  iii.  91,  92. 
Ker,  Andrew,  ii.  547. 
Ker,  Dan,  ii.  223. 
Ker,    George,   ii.    363-364,    367,    380, 

383.   572. 

Ker,  Gibby,  iii.  234,  244,  249. 

Ker,  Henry,  ii.  266-267. 

Ker,  Lord  Mark,  iv.  509. 

Ker,  Sir  Robert  (1511),  i.  374. 

Ker.  Sir  Robert  (Earl  of  Somerset),  ii. 
499.  504,  512,  525. 

Kers  of  the  Border,  i.  361.  See  also 
Cessford,  Ferniehurst,  &c. 

Kersland,  John  Ker  of  ("  Pierce  "),  re- 
lations of,  with  Queensberry  and  De 
Foe,  iv.  127-131,  142  ;  relations  with 
Jacobites,  142-147,  149-150,  161  ; 
cited,  124-125,  127,  130,  145-146, 
149;  quoted,   256,  482. 

Kid  (preacher),  iii.  336,  355. 

Killigrew,  ii.  165,  166,  182,  242,  248, 
257  -  259  ;  cited  on  prosperity  of 
Scotland,  251. 

Kilmarnock,  House  of,  i.  206. 

Kilmarnock,  Boyd  of  (1424),  i.  300. 

Kilmarnock,  Sir  Thos.  Boyd  of,  i.  321. 

Kilmarnock,  4th  Earl  of,  iv    521. 

Kilmaronock,  Cochrane  of,  iv.  126. 

Kilmaurs,  Master  of.     See  Glencairn. 

Kilpont,  Lord,  iii.  121-123. 

Kilrymont,  i.  44.     See  also  St  Andrews. 

Kilspindie,    Archibald    Douglas   of,    i. 

505.  5.06. 
Kilsyth,  iv.  199. 
Kin  feuds,  i.  147-148. 
Kincardine,    Earl   of  (1667),    iii.    314, 

316.  317,  327. 
Kincardine,  Earl  of  (1707),  iv.  137,  328, 

352. 
Kincardine,  Lady,  iii.  366-367. 
Kincavel,   Sir  James   Hamilton   of,    i. 

43'.  433.  450.  504-506. 
Kincavel,  Sir  Patrick   Hamilton  of,   i. 

373.  399,  429,  504- 
Kind  (Kane),  payment  in,  i.   133,   141, 

155,  161. 
Kinfauns,  Charteris  of,  ii.  53. 
Kinfauns,  Sir  George  Hay  of,  ii.   517. 

531  ;  iii.  7,  II. 
King,  Dr,  iii.  234. 
King  (preacher),  iii.  355. 
King's  Court,   constitution  of,  i.    146, 

150. 
King's  peace,  i.  148,  5CO-501. 
King's  pleas  (pleas  of  the   Crown),  i. 

150. 


INDEX. 


583 


♦  King's  Qnair,  The,'  i.  295,  299,  314, 

318- 
Kinkel,  Robert  Hamilton  of,  ni.  330, 

336- 
Kinless  loons,  i.  149-150. 
Kinloch,  Balfour  of.     See  Burley. 
Kinlochmoidart,  tineas  Macdonald  of, 

iv.  458,  471. 
Kinloss,  Abbot  of,  ii.  470-472,  474. 
Kinmont  Willie,  ii.  406-408,  523. 
Kinnaird,  Ciiarles,  iv.  177,  178,  181, 
Kinnoul,  Lord,  iii.  27,  210,  216,  223. 
Kintail,  Mackenzie  of  (1516),  i.  397. 
Kintail,  Mackenzie  of  (1601),  ii.  527, 

531- 
Kintyre,    Isles   family   deprived   of,    i, 

343,  366,  370. 
Kirk  (iif<j  also  Covenanters) — 

Aberdeen,  Assembly  of  (1605),  ii. 
481-483;  prosecutions  for,  484- 
487  ;  banishment  of  the  preachers, 
488. 

Abjuration  question  (1710),  iv.   156- 

157,   159- 
"  Agents,"  permanent,  institution  of, 

ii.  491-492. 
Ancient  sanctions  put  forward  by,  i. 

25-       .     . 
Antinomianism,  iv.  285,  289. 

Arminianism,  iii.  2,  17,  44;  iv.  281. 

Articles  of  Perth,  ii.  511,  513-517; 
Charles  I.'s  letter  on,  iii.  16;  re- 
call of,  demanded  (1638),  29,  36. 

"Associated  Presbytery"  (1733),  iv. 
301,  315-321. 

Auchterarder  Creed,  the,  iv.  283- 
284. 

Barrier  Act,  iv.  298. 

Bishops  {see  also  sub-heading  Epis- 
copacy)— 
Authority  secured  for,  ii.  491. 
Consecration  of  (1610),  ii.  504. 
General  Assemblies,  subjection  to, 
ii.    318,  493,   506 ;    indicted  by 
General    Assembly    (1638),    iii. 

40-43- 
Insulting  references  to,  iii.  3. 
Jacobite  attitude  of,  iii.  415. 
Parliamentary  voting  by  (1600),  ii. 

465-466. 
Position  of — as  defined  (1586),  ii. 

318;    as    existing   (1602- 1610), 

488  ;   after  the  Restoration,   iii. 

3"-3i2- 

Temporalities  of,  annexed  to  Crown 
(1587),  ii.  337  ;  annexation  re- 
scinded (1606),  489;  re-enacted 
(1627),  iii.  12-13. 

Tulchan  bishops,  ii.  241. 
Black  Acts,  ii.   299-300 ;   abrogated 

(1592),  359- 


Book  of  Common  Order,  ii.  80,  82. 
Book  of  Discipline,  ii.   84,  96,    no, 

123-124;  second,  iv.  158,  159. 
'Book  of  the  Polecie  of  the  Kirk,' 

ii.  277. 
Bourignon  opinions,  iv.  282. 
Burgess  Oath  controversy,   iv.    319- 

321. 
Cameronians.     See  that  title. 
Catholic   nobles,    relations   with,   ii. 

430,  473,  476. 
Character  of,  i.  423,  427. 
Charles  I.'s  better  endowment  of,  iii. 

8,  9,  14. 
Charter  of  liberties  passed  (1592),  ii. 

359- 360. 
Church  fabrics,  decay  and  neglect  of, 

iii.  24-25. 
Church  (pre- Reformation)  contrasted 

with,  i.  423;  ii.  419. 
Clergy  of,  ii.  82,  85. 
Commissioners,  Fourteen,  appointed 

by  James  VI.,  ii.  430. 
Committee  of  Public  .Safety  (1596), 

ii.  411  ;  declared  illegal,  415-416. 
"Conceived  prayers,"  ii.  81 ;  iii.  24, 

25,  32,  43.  204,  303  ;  iv.  34,  155. 
Confession,  new  (1616),  ii.  511. 
Confession,  practice  of,  iii.  303. 
Confession  of  Faith,  iii.  17. 
Conventicles — opposed  by  preachers 

(1640),    iii.  84-85;   suppressed  by 

Glencairn    (1660),    290;    held   by 

ousted   ministers,   303,    306,    315, 

329,  335  ;  measures  against,   317, 

318,  333,  336;  Beath  Hill,  322. 
Covenant,  National  (1581) — 

Aim  of,  ii.  283. 

Charles  II.  compelled  to  take,  iii. 
209,  228-229,  231. 

Development  of,  iii.  181. 

Extinction  of  (1690),  iv.  32. 

Forcing  of,  on  all  and  sundry,  iii. 
18,  34,  68. 

James   VI. 's    subscription    to,    ii. 
486. 

Legality  of,  question  as  to,  iii.  32- 

33- 
Nature  of,  i.  321-322  ;  iii.  31-32. 
New  Testimony  as  to,  iv.  322-323. 
Obligations   of,    as    conceived    by 

preachers,  iii.    162. 
Renewal  of  (1638),  iii.  31-33. 
Results  of,  iii.  203. 
St  Covenant's  day,  iii.  195. 
Seceders'  (1733)  adherence  to,  iv. 

302,  305,  306. 
Signing  of  (1638),  iii.  30-32. 
Covenant,  Solemn  League  and.     See 

sub-h(aJiug  Solemn  League. 
Crail  Court,  iii.  305. 


584 


INDEX. 


Curates  (1663),  Hi.  302,  315,  316, 
318  note,  324,  419. 

Declinature  of  jurisdiction,  ii.  413, 
485-487. 

Delegates  from,  to  Westminster  As- 
sembly of  Divines  (1642),  iii.  105, 
no,  115. 

Discipline — 

Book  of.     See  that  sub-heading. 
Laxity  of,  ii.  6. 

Drama  opposed  by,  ii.  441. 

Education  of  the  poor  to  be  a  charge 
on,  ii,  83. 

Endowment  Scheme  for  (the  Con- 
stant Plat),  ii.  402-403  ;  iii.  13. 

Engagement,  the,  iii.  1 85-1 88;  strin- 
gency relaxed,  249,  251-252. 

England — 

Alliance  with  Puritans  in,  ii.  350. 
Conversion  of,  to  Presbyterianism, 
efforts  for,  iii.  103-104,  106,  107, 
109. 

"Enthusiasm"  in,  iv.  306-308. 

Episcopacy     {see     also     sub-heading 
Bishops) — 
Establishment  of  (1573),  ii.  248; 
(1598),     433-434;     (1661),     iii. 
298,  300. 
Nature  of,  ii.  255. 
Opposition    to    (1580),    ii.    277; 

(1592),  484,  487. 
Personnel  of,  ii.  253. 

Erastianism,  iv.  30,  31. 

Espionage  of  morals,  &c.,  i.  423;  ii. 

377..  510.  548-549;  iii-  103. 
Establishment  of  Presbyterianism — 

Charles  I. 's  refusal  of,  iii.  150,  164 
167,  169,  171  ;  he  offers  three 
years'  trial  of,  181,  185. 

Form  of  (1690),  iv.  31. 

Project  of  (1646),  iii.  163,  170. 
Ethical  side  of,  ii.  87-88. 
Excommunication.     See  that  title. 
Factiousness  of,  iii.  263. 
Family  prayers  enforced  by,  ii.  510; 

iii.  201. 
Fasts  proclaimed  by,  iv.  156. 
Fife,  Synod   of  (1597),    ii.   42S ;   iii. 

39  note. 
General  Assemblies — 

Bishops  subject  to,  ii.  493,  506. 

Glasgow,  at  (1638),  iii.  38-45,  62, 
64,  65. 

Lilburne's  ejection  of,  ii.  406 ;  iii. 
265. 

"  Mackintosh's  Courts,"  ii.  300. 

Perth,  at  {1597),  ''•  428-429- 

Power  and  sphere  of,  ii.  425-426. 

Prc)cecdings  of,  ii.  254,  255. 
Golden  charter  of  (1592),  ii.  483  ;  iii. 

38.  5'- 


Growth  of  views  in,  iii.  17. 
Hebronites,  iv.  161,  195. 
Holidays  resented  by,  iii.  294,  324. 
Immorality  under,  ii.  377-378,  402, 

406,   548;    iii.    102-103,    204-205, 

278-279. 
"  Independence  "  of,  i.  425. 
Independents  in,  iii.  4. 
Indulgence     (1669),     iii.      317-319; 

(1672),     323-325;     (1679),     356; 

(1687),  410. 
Infallibility   and    direct    inspiration, 

claims  to,   ii.   80,    365,  387,    414- 

415.  465.  474-475.  484;    iii-  243, 
Interference  in  State  affairs,   claims 

to,  ii.  26,  131,  350-351,  354,  362, 

411,  415-416;  iii.   I,  39,  64,  105, 

187,  189. 
Intolerance  of,  i.  422 ;  ii.  12,6,  360, 

365.  375.  377-378,  426 ;  iii.  4,  28, 

34,  44,  45,  261  ;  iv.   15,  289.     See 

also  sub-heading  Persecution  by. 
Intrusion  of  undesired  ministers,  iii. 

261,  272  ;  iv.  158,  159,  297,  304. 
Keys,  power  of  the,  iv.  301-302,  320. 
Lent,  observance  of,  ii.  550. 
Linlithgow    convention    (1606),     ii. 

491-492. 
Liturgy — 

Imposition  of,  attempted  and  re- 
sisted, iii.  25-28  ;  the  Protesta- 
tions, 29-30. 

Project  for  (1616),  ii.  511  ;  iii.  18. 
Marrow  controversy  (1718),  iv.  284- 

289;  Marrow  men,  293. 
Massacre  of  Catholics  demanded  by, 

ii.  243. 
Moderate  party  developing  in  (1649), 

iii.  207. 
Moderates,  iv.  293,  309. 
Moderators,  constant,  institution  of, 

ii.  491-492. 
"Necessary    Warning"    (1643),    iii. 

105. 
Neonomianism  in,  iv.  288-289. 
New  Lights,  iv.  323. 
Oath  of  Abjuration,  iv.  156-157,  159, 

289-290,  327. 
Oaths  of  allegiance  demanded  from 

ministers  (1693),  iv.   49. 
Old  Lights,  iv.  323. 
Parishes  unserved  by,  ii.  402. 
Parties   in — High    Church,    Puritan, 

and  Independent,  iii.  2,  4. 
Patronage — 

Abolition  of  (1649),  iii.  294,  300; 
(1690),  iv.  35,  36. 

Abuse  of,  iv.  312-313;  Jacobite 
abuse  of,  291. 

Bills  regarding  (1689),  iv.  5. 

History  of,  iv.  157-159. 


INDEX. 


585 


I'upular  election  suggested  (1642), 

iii.  104. 
Reform  of  (17 19),  iv.  292. 
Restoration  of  (1661-1662),  iii.  294, 

300;  (1710),  iv.  157-159-. 
Secession   (1733)  on   question    of, 

iv.  297. 
William's  policy  regarding,  iv.  29. 
Porteous   riot,   attitude   towards,  iv. 

431-432- 
Preachers — 

Appointment  of,  ii.  82. 
Blood-thirst  of  (1646),  iii.  135-136, 

161-162,  180-181,  1^4,  and  note. 
Claims  of,  as  to  freedom  of  speech, 

ii.  317,  318. 
Conventicles  opposed  by,  iii.  84-S5. 
Cromwell's  letter  to,  iii.  233. 
Curses   of,   on   army  of  relief  for 

Charles,  iii.   190. 
Exiled  by  James  VI.,  ii.  297-300, 

304.  305- 
Expediency  followed  by,  ii.  466. 
Hangings  of,  iii.  355,  363,  411. 
Heckling  of,  custom  as  to,  iii.  12. 
Incorruptibility  of,  ii.  266. 
Mary,   requested    to   pray   for,    ii. 

329-330.  332- 
Morton's  and  Mar's  insolence  to, 

ii.  238,  241. 
Morton's  severities  towards,  ii.  246, 

252-254,  268. 
"Perfection"  of,  ii.  401,  406. 
Persecution  by,   ii.    494-495,   506- 

509,  518;  iii.  207. 
Persecution  of,  ii.  304. 
Poverty  of,  ii.  no,  252,  283. 
Power  and  tyranny  of,  ii.  132  ;  iii. 

195- 
Precisians'  dictation  to,  iii.  326. 
"Purging"   of  the   army  by,    iii. 

232,  237. 
Silencing  of,  by  Elizabeth,  ii.  309. 
Preaching — 

Importance     and     popularity     of 

sermons,  ii.  81,  283. 
"Polite"   style    disapproved,    iv. 

322,   324- 
Provocative  sermons,  ii.  387. 
Rise  of,  i.  423,  426. 
"Sough,"  the,  iv.  293,  371. 
Topics   imposed   (1648),   iii.   203  ; 
morality   as    topic   disapproved, 
iv.  302,  309. 
"Presbytery  of  the   Relief"  (1761), 

iv.  322. 
Press  censorship  by,  iii.  44. 
"  Prophesying,"  ii.  84-85. 
Prophets,  how  to  recognise,  ii.  428. 
Protesters,   iii.   255,    261,   264,   265, 
275,  277,  2S5-2S6. 


Protests,  frequency  of,  iv.  297,  298, 

319- 
Reeds,  ii.  475. 

Reformed  Presbytery  (1743),  iv.  305. 
Remonstrants,  iii.  247-249,  252. 
Renwickites,  iii.  389-390,  400-402. 
Resolutioners,  iii.  261,  265,  272,  285- 

286. 
Revivals,  iv.  317,  318. 
Riding  committees,  iv.  292. 
"Scarlet  Woman"  theory,    ii.  502; 

iii.  264. 
Secession  (1733),  iv.  297-305  ;  seces- 
sions from  (1743),  305,  309. 
Service,  ii.  80-82,  509-510;  iv.  154- 
155 ;   James   VI.'s    Five   Articles, 
ii.   511,  513-517- 
Smytonite  controversy,  iv.  329. 
'Solemn   and   Seasonable  Warning' 

(1646),  iii.  180. 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant — 
Abjuration  of,  proposed  by  Grange, 

iv.  179. 
Charles  II.  forced  to  swear  to,  iii. 

179,  209,  228-229,  231. 
Compilation  of  (1643),  "'•  '09. 
New  Testimony  as  to,  iv.  322-323. 
Policy  of,  iii.  178. 
Results  of,  iii.  109,  203. 
Seceders'  (1733)  adherence  to,  iv. 
302,  305,  306. 
State,    war    with.     See   sub-heading 

Interference. 
Sunday  observance,  rigour  as  to,  ii. 

514-515,  549. 
Superintendents,  ii.  82-83. 
Theological  side  of,  ii.  85-87. 
Theological-political    theory    of,    ii. 

425-426. 
Tyranny  of,  political,  iii.  105. 
Uniformity,    impossibility  of,    iii.   4, 

18,  103-104. 
Union  with  England,  position  under, 

iv.  123. 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  iii. 
203-204  ;  established  (1690),  iv.  30. 
Kirk,  Rev.  Robert,  cited,  i.  24. 
Kirk-o'- Field,  ii.  174-175. 
Kirkcaldy,  James,  ii.  223,  248. 
Kirkcaldy  of  (jrange.     See  Grange. 
Kirkconnell,   Maxwell  of,  estimate  of, 
iv.  460,  497  :   cited,  460,    464,   469, 
474.  476,  478,  4S0,  4S2,  484,  486, 
487,  491.  493-495i  497-501.  504-510, 
513.  516,  517. 
Kirklands,  i.  81. 
Kirkmadrine,  i.  24. 

Kirkmichael,  John,  Bp.  of  Orleans,  i.  294, 
Kirkton,  iii.  329  ;  cited,  300  and  note, 

317,  341,  342,  352. 
"  Kitty's  Confession,"  i.  426. 


586 


INDEX. 


Knapdale,  Isles  family  deprived  of,  i. 

343.  370. 

Knollys,  ii.  214;  cited,  316. 

Knox,  Andrew,  Bp.  of  the  Isles,  seizes 
George  Ker,  ii.  363,  489 ;  discovers 
Ladyland  at  Ailsa,  429 ;  Bp.  of 
Raphoe,  505 ;  relations  with  High- 
land chiefs,  529-531  ;  possession  of 
Dunyveg,  533. 

Knox,  Henry,  iii.  266. 

Knox,  John,  ancestors  of,  i.  361,  379  ; 
early  career  of,  ii.  4-5  ;  in  St  Andrews 
Castle,  5-6 ;  sent  to  the  galleys, 
8 ;  released,  16 ;  call  of,  6,  82, 
90 ;  as  licensed  preacher,  16,  25 ; 
made  Royal  Chaplain,  26 ;  refuses 
Bishopric  of  Rochester,  5,  26 ;  at 
Geneva  and  Zurich,  27  ;  tract  against 
Mary  Tudor,  27-28  ;^on  conformity, 
29,  30 ;  marriage  with  Marjory 
Bowes,  25  ;  goes  to  Geneva  (1556), 
36  ;  returns  to  Dieppe  on  invitation 
to  Scotland,  34,  36 ;  portents  re- 
corded by,  34  ;  doubts,  37  ;  '  First 
Blast,'  37,  56  ;  in  Perth,  48-52 ;  at 
St  Andrews,  54  ;  letter  to  the  Regent, 
51  ;  intrigues  with  England,  54,  56, 
60,  62-63  ;  prophecy  as  to  Queen 
Regent's  death,  65,  66  ;  Confession  of 
Faith,  76;  iii.  17;  the  Grand  Turk 
favourably  contrasted  with,  ii.  78 ; 
The  Book  of  Common  Order,  80, 
82  ;  Winzet's  questions,  89-91  ;  rela- 
tions with  Arran,  93,  95  ;  denounces 
the  Mass,  105  ;  interview  with  the 
Queen,  105-107;  letter  to  Calvin, 
109 ;  reconciliation  of  Arran  and 
Bothwell,  III  ;  denounces  Anglican- 
ism, 113  ;  on  Mary's  dancing,  121, 
123;  on  Paul  Methven,  126-127; 
denounces  Spanish  marriage  project, 
128;  on  Dudley,  130;  trial  of  Arm- 
strong and  Cranstoun,  130-131  ; 
estrangement  from  Moray,  133  ; 
attempted  suspension  of,  by  Mary, 
149;  on  Kiccio's  murder,  164; 
against  Mary's  release,  225  ;  prayer 
at  Moray's  funeral,  227  ;  quarrel  with 
Kirkcaldy,  233,  236  ;  retreats  to  St 
Andrews,  235  ;  returns  to  Edinburgh, 
242 ;  prophesies  hanging  of  Kirk- 
caldy, 242,  249 ;  death  of,  246 ; 
estimates  of,  247  ;  Carlylean  senti- 
ment regarding,  iv.  324 ;  charac- 
teristics of,  i.  425  ;  ii.  88  ;  inaccuracy 
of,  18  ;  style  of,  488  ;  hal)it  of 
political  haranguing,  26;  altitude 
towards  political  murders,  28,  247, 
340.  342,  389 ;.  definite  policy  of, 
212  ;  flaw  in  religious  system  of,  87  ; 
cited — on  siege   of  St    Andrews,   7, 


18,  20-21  ;  on  Wallace's  martyrdom, 

19,  20 ;  on  Mary's  outlawry  of  the 
preachers,  47-50 ;  on  articles  of 
agreement  at  Edinburgh,  59 ;  on 
Mary's  overthrow  of  Huntly,  1 19 ; 
on  heretics,  i.  310-31 1;  on  Solway 
Moss  and  James  V. 's  death,  455- 
456 ;  on  George  Wishart,  484-488, 
492 ;  otherwise  cited,  i.  159,  423, 
428,  445,  446,  453,  460,  461,  468, 
472,  474,  479,  483,  490,  491  ;  ii.  2, 
4,  13.  17,  35,  39,  42,  46,  56,  60,  76, 
78,  95.  96,  98,  no,  121,  124,  129, 
131-132,  138,  150,  161;  iv.  89; 
otherwise  mentioned,  i.  365,  424, 
426 ;  ii.  22,  23,  58,  100,  173,  222 ; 
iv.  157,  320,  322. 

Knox,  William,  i.  480,  492. 
Knoydart — 

Land  tenure  in,  i.  134. 

Services    commuted    for    money    in 
(1770- 1780),  i.    140. 

La  Dotitelle,  iv.  457-459. 

La  Grange,  iv.  246-248. 

La  Hire,  i.  294,  307. 

La  Mothe.     See  Fenelon. 

La  Motte,  de,  i.  374,  376,  378. 

Ladyland,  Barclay  of,  ii.  429. 

Lady's  Rock,  legend  of,  i.  417,  419. 

Ladywell,  John  Stewart  of,  iii.  86-87, 

89  and  note. 
Lag,  Grierson  of,  iii.  336,  385,  387,  3S8. 
Lag,  Laird  of  (1639),  iii.  60,  69. 
Laing,  Beatrix,  iv.  314-315- 
Laing,   David,   cited,  ii.  60,  91,   133; 

iii.  286. 
Laing,  Malcolm,  iii.  421, 
Lairds,  rise  of,  i.  474. 
Lake-dwellings,  i.  60-63,  85. 
Lally,  iv.  275. 
Lamb  (preacher),  iii.  84. 
Lambert,  Gen.,  iii.  190,  197,  232,  24I, 

249,  253-255,  257,  264. 
Lambcrton,  Wm.,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews, 

perjuries  of,  i.  191,  193,  225  ;  "  band  " 

with  Bruce,  201-202;  in  irons,  206; 

otherwise  mentioned,   97,   188,   189, 

200. 
Lamb's  "  Dundee,"  iii.  138  note. 
Lancaster,    Duke    of.      See    John    of 

G.aunt. 
Lancaster,  Earl  of,  i.  231. 
Lancastrians  and  Yorkists,  i.  335-338. 
Land  tenure — 

Celtic,  i.  80-83. 

Church.     See  under  Church. 

English,  i.  82. 

Eviction — 

Religious  beliefs,  for,  ii.  494. 
Restraint  on  (1429),  i.  306-307. 


INDEX. 


587 


Feu  farm    reform   of  James   IV.,   i. 

385. 
Feudal.     See  Feudalism. 
firmarii  on  yearly  lease,  i.  139. 
Folkland,  i.  71-72,  86. 
Forfeiture,  i.  135. 

Henderson's  proposed  reforms,  ii.  22. 
Hijihland,  to  '45,  i.  134 ;  iv.  374. 
Husbandlands,  i.  139. 
Laenland,  i.  82. 
"Native"  or   "kindly"  tenants,   ii. 

556.. 
Precarious    nature    of,    ii.    556 ;    iii. 

204 ;  iv.  388 ;  legislation  for  greater 

security,  i.  326-327. 
Private   property,    beginnings   of,    i. 

80,  81. 
Rent  in  substitution  for  services,  ii. 

536, 
Run -rig,  iv.  389. 
Steel-bow,  i.  82 ;  iv.  389. 
Tacksmen,  ii.  139. 
Tax  in  relation  to  Union  Treaty,  iv. 

113-115- 
Tenants'   security  under   change   of 

ownership,  i.  326-327. 
Tribal,  i.  80-83,  133. 
Lanercost  Chronicle  cited,  i.  139,   181, 
196,  215,  234,   239,   240,  243,  257, 

503- 
Lang,  Margaret,  iv.  314. 

Language  of  Picts  and  Scots,  i.  12,  14- 

Largie,  Macdonald  of,  ii.  537. 

Largo,  Wood  of,  ii.  542. 

Lathocker,  Laird  of,  ii.  432. 

Latimer,  Bp.,  ii.  15,  23  ;  cited,  83. 

Laud,  Abp.,  accompanies  James  to 
Scotland,  ii.  512  ;  Scottish  attitude 
towards,  iii.  3  ;  recommends  imposi- 
tion of  English  liturgy  on  Scotland, 
18  ;  made  xVbp.  of  Canterbury,  22  ; 
imposition  of  liturgy,  25,  33  ;  Pres- 
byterian denunciation  of,  69 ;  pro- 
vocative policy  of,  72 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  ii.  518;  iii.  19,  34,  42 
note,  81. 

Lauder  Bridge,  i.  345,  348,  349,  359. 

Lauderdale,  Duke  of  (Lord  Maitland), 
leads  Scottish  rebels  (1643),  iii.  IZ2  ; 
the  Engagement,  185-186,  188;  in 
Holland,  200,  211  ;  discourted,  230, 
231 ;  forfeited,  272  ;  with  Charles  H. 
in  London  (1660),  283;  plots  against, 
301,  307  ;  made  Keeper  of  Edinburgh 
Castle,  302  ;  on  Waristoun,  304-305  ; 
attitude  towards  Sharp,  305,  307  ; 
Sharp  the  tool  of,  313  ;  enraged  by 
Covenanters,  320 ;  severities  against 
the  Kirk,  ii.  360 ;  second  wife  of,  iii. 
Ill,    320,     326;     "humble    resent- 


ments" against,  326-327;  despotic 
power  of,  330  ;  trial  of  Mitchell,  331- 
332  ;  raises  a  force  against  Conven- 
ticlers,  333-334  ;  calls  a  financial  con- 
vention, 334;  deati)  of,  369;  estimate 
of,  42  noti:,  320,  330  ;  demoralisation 
of,  293;  literary  tastes  of,  185;  other- 
wise mentioned,  iii.  15,  104,  105,  135, 
177,  191,  195,  206,  207,  221,  266, 
286,   295,  298,   322,  325,  356,  368, 

391. 
Lauderdale,  House  of,  ii.  396. 
Lauderdale,  Lord,  iii.  a,znote,  104,  136. 
Lauriston,  Law  of,  iv.  105,  335. 
Lauriston,  Straiton  of,  ii.  480-482. 

Law,  Rev. ,  cited,  iii.  287,  354,  372. 

Law,   Abp.  of  Glasgow,  ii.  510,  537- 

538. 

Law,  T.  G.,  cited,  ii.  370. 

Lawers,  Archibald  Campbell  of,  iii.  77, 
242. 

Lawless,  Sir  Patrick,  iv.  248,  263. 

Lawrence,  Col.,  iv.  221. 

Laws,  emendations  of,  under  James  I., 
i.  304. 

Lawson,  James,  ii.  297,  299,  300. 

Lawson,  Sir  Wilfrid  (Border  Commis- 
sioner), ii.  523. 

Layer,  Christopher,  iv.  287,  329,  337 
et  seq. 

Learmont,  Andrew,  iii.  34. 

Learmonth,  Provost,  i.  489. 

Learmonth  of  Balcomie.    See  Balcomie. 

Leather  trade,  ii.  554-555. 

Lee,  Principal,  cited,  ii.  431-432. 

Leeds,  Duke  of,  iv.  181,  248-249. 

Leges  inter  Brettos  et  Scottos  cited,  i. 

137- 

Legge,  Col. ,  ni.  250. 

Leicester,  Earl  of  (Robert  Dudley), 
suspicious  death  of  wife  of,  ii.  93  ; 
proposed  for  Mary's  hand,  125,  130, 
'^Zl-'^yi^  139;  jealousy  of  Cecil,  215; 
approves  Norfolk  marriage  project, 
218  ;  plot  to  seize  James,  201  ;  en- 
mity with  Master  of  Gray,  328;  death 
of,  342  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  166, 
242. 

Leighton,  Abp.  of  Glasgow,  among  the 
bloodthirsty,  iii.  180,  181  ;  dislike  of 
fanaticism,  203  ;  on  ecclesiastical  ap- 
pointments, 302  -  303  ;  ecclesiastical 
policy  of,  316,  319  ;  succeeds  Burnet 
as  Abp.  of  Glasgow,  321  ;  itinerant 
missionaries  of,  323-325  ;  dislike  of 
wranglings,  327  ;  resigns,  328 ;  esti- 
mate of,  321,  323,  328-329;  other- 
wise mentioned,  299,   300. 

Leighton,  Alexander,  iii.  3. 

Leith,  Father  Forbes,  cited,  ii.  494, 
507,  509- 


588 


INDEX. 


Lennox,  House  of,  i.  362. 

Lennox,  ist  Duke  of,  arrives  in  Scot- 
land, ii.  295  ;  during  James's  absence 
in  Denmark,  348 ;  implicated  in 
Bothwell's  attack  on  Holyrood,  355  ; 
hatred  of  Maitland,  367  ;  in  Both- 
well's plot  to  seize  James,  371,  373; 
deserts  Bothwell,  376 ;  suspected  by 
James,  389  ;  refuses  Bothwell's  bribe 
to  seize  James,  391  ;  commissioned 
to  quiet  the  Highlands,  526;  with 
James  in  Gowrie  plot,  452,  453,  455, 
457,  462 ;  death  and  estimate  of,  517  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  512,  560. 

Lennox,  Duke  of  (1633),  iii.  2Q,  27,  89, 
90,  177. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (1297),  at  Stirling 
Bridge,  i.  183-184;  with  Bruce,  205 ; 
at  Halidon  Hill,  248-249. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (1425),  i.  301-302. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (1489),  i.  362,  379. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (1514),  pensioner  of 
England,  i.  407;  James  V.'s  "band" 
with,  409 ;  murder  of,  by  Finnart, 
410,  450,  504;  otherwise  mentioned, 

394.  403. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (1543),  returns  from 
France,  i.  468  ;  joins  English  faction, 
472  ;  ii.  262  ;  threatens  Edinburgh, 
i.  475 ;  sells  himself  to  Henry  and 
marries  daughter  of  Angus,  478  ;  fails 
before  Dumbarton,  479  ;  in  alliance 
with  Donald  Dubh,  509 ;  ravaging 
in  the  West,  ii.  9,  II,  12;  urges 
claims  to  the  crown,  63 ;  imprison- 
ment of,  by  Elizabeth  not  resented  in 
Scotland,  113;  Elizabeth  proposes 
return  of,  129  ;  Elizabeth's  waverings 
as  to,  ib.,  133-134;  restoration  pro- 
claimed, 135 ;  adherents  of,  138, 
140;  plot  to  seize,  142-144;  hostility 
to  Mary,  159 ;  foreknowledge  of 
Mary's  abduction,  184;  as  Mary's 
accuser,  202,  205,  209 ;  the  Casket 
Letters,  565-56S  ;  has  Lethington  im- 
peached, 221  ;  devastates  Hamilton 
country,  229 ;  appointed  Regent, 
230;  an  English  subject,  231;  has 
Archbishop  Hamilton  executed,  225  ; 
forfeits  Lethington,  236  ;  death  and 
estimate  of,  237  -  238 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  i.  362,  469,  471  ;  ii.  97, 
151,  154,  166,  167,  181,  228,  232. 

Lennox,  Earl  of  (10sm<5  Stuart  d'Au- 
bigny),  in  favour  with  James,  ii.  264  ; 
appointed  to  I'^arldom  of  Lennox, 
265  ;  surfeiting,  263,  267,  290 ;  Pro- 
testantism f)f,  266-267  ;  attitude  to 
the  Kirk,  268,  277;  secures  Dum- 
barton, 267  ;  French  sympathies  of, 
280 ;    plot  for  conversion  of  James, 


281-282 ;  attacked  by  Durie,  283 ; 
band  against,  284  ;  timidity  of,  ib.  ; 
after  Raid  of  Ruthven,  286 ;  plot  to 
seize  James  from  Ruthven  raiders, 
287  ;  Lords'  indictment  against,  288  ; 
visit  to  France,  2S9 ;  death,  290 ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  260,  262,  264. 

Lennox,  Lady  (1603),  ii.  528. 

Lennox,  Lady,  imprisonment  of,  ii. 
142,  143 ;  reconciliation  with  Mary, 
260 ;  death  of,  ib.  ;  estimate  of, 
136  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  395  ; 
ii.    138,   149,   227. 

Lent,  ii.  550. 

Leprosy,  i.  143,  155-156,  306. 

Lesley,  John,  Bp.  of  Ross,  sent  as  en- 
voy to  Mary,  ii.  97  ;  Mary's  trust 
in,  151  ;  supersedes  Balfour,  165 ; 
Ainslie's  band,  183 ;  Mary's  Com- 
missioner, 202,  205  -  207  ;  attitude 
towards  the  charges  against  Mary, 
213,  214  ;  on  the  Norfolk  marriage 
project,  223 ;  examination  and  im- 
prisonment of,  22r,  239;  disloyalty 
to  Mary,  240 ;  intrigues  for  Maiy  in 
France,  262,  267  ;  proposes  tolera- 
tion, 382;   cited,  i.   334,   341,   343, 

347,  348,  356,  358,  360,  392-394, 
398,  419,  420,  505-507  ;  ii.  14,  16, 
18,  24,  35,  52,  78,  216,  219,  220; 
unreliability  of,  i.  352  ;  Winzet's  al- 
leged authorship  in  '  History  '  of,  ii. 
91-92;  otherwise  mentioned,  170, 
231-233,  565. 

Leslie,  Alexander.     See  Leven. 

Leslie,  David,  at  Marston  Moor,  iii.  1 16; 
cavalry  force  of,  150,  156;  Philip- 
haugh,  157-158  and  note;  orders 
against  giving  quarter,  158,  162  ;  at 
Dunaverty  and  Duniveg,  183  -  1S4 
atid  note ;  fortifies  Leith,  232  ;  out- 
manoeuvres Cromwell,  234  ;  question 
as  to  his  offer  to  sell  Charles  II., 
235  note ;  Dunbar,  237-242 ;  goes 
against  royalists,  246  ;  invades  Eng- 
land, 255  ;  captured  at  Worcester 
fight,  258;  estimate  of,  112;  other- 
wise mentioned,    196,   300. 

Leslie,  James,  Provost  of  Lincluden,  i. 

335- 

Leslie,  John,  i.  489. 

Leslie,  Norman.    See  Rothes,  Master  of. 

Leslie,  Robert,  i.  506. 

Leslie,  Robert  (page  of  Charles  L).  iii. 
61. 

Lethington,  James  (author  of  MS. 
Apology),  ii.  408. 

Lethington,  Wni.  Maitland  of,  Secre- 
tary of  the  congregation,  ii.  61  ;  con- 
ference with  (^ueen  Regent,  66 ; 
Speaker    of     Parliament     of    1560, 


INDEX. 


589 


75 ;  on  Confession  of  Faith,  76  ; 
with  embassy  to  Elizabeth  anent 
Arran's  marriage  project,  93  -  94  ; 
letters  to  Cecil,  96  ;  Mary's  instruc- 
tions to,  99*100;  negotiates  between 
Mary  and  Elizabeth,  107,  iio-iii, 
II 3- 1 15;  opposes  ratification  of  Book 
of  Discipline,  no;  ks politiques  led 
by,  ib.  ;  marriage  diplomacy,  125- 
126;  efforts  for  release  of  Bothwell 
and  Lennox,  129  ;  advises  modera- 
tion, 132-133;  in  love,  137;  slighted 
by  Mary,  151,  154,  159;  on  Riccio, 
158;  privy  to  Riccio  plot,  161  ;  for- 
feited, 164  ;  restored  to  favour,  165, 
167  ;  reconciled  with  Bothwell,  167  ; 
Craigmillar  conference,  171-172;  im- 
plicated in  Damley's  murder,  175- 
177,  182,  195,  219-221 ;  on  the  Both- 
well  marriage,  183;  rescued  by  Mary, 
185,  188,  189;  taken  with  Mary  by 
Bothwell,  185  ;  deserts  Mary,  187  ; 
in  danger  of  exposure  by  her,  188- 
189,  195,  199,  203,  219,  230,  231  ; 
advises  killing  her,  189,  359 ;  de- 
tested by  her,  189,  219,  222;  shows 
Casket  Letters  to  English  Commis- 
sioners, 189,  202,230;  possible  tam- 
pering by,  with  Casket  Letters,  191, 
563-564  ;  excuse  by,  for  Mary's  con- 
duct sent  to  Bp.  of  Dunblane,  568 ; 
on  Moray's  accusations,  205 ;  begin- 
ning of  paralysis,  218,  228;  at  the 
Perth  Assembly,  220  ;  impeached  by 
Crawford,  221  ;  imprisoned,  222 ; 
released,  223  ;  true  to  Norfolk,  ih.  ; 
trial  prorogued,  224 ;  rehabilitated, 
227 ;  correspondence  with  Sussex, 
230-231  ;  advice  to  Mary,  231-232; 
forfeited  by  Lennox,  236 ;  prolongs 
the  deadlock,  240-241  ;  in  the  siege, 
24S  ;  death  of,  249  ;  estimate  of,  29, 
250;  tolerance  of,  10S-109  ;  aim  at 
union  with  England,  64,  no,  135, 
219,  231  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i. 
339;  ii-  25,  77,  84,  107,  116,  123, 
124,   139,  141,   157,   170,  182,  229. 

"Letters  from  a  Gentleman  in  the 
North  of  Scotland"  cited,  iv.  366, 
370-376,   3^6. 

Leven,  Earl  of  (Alexander  Leslie), 
commander  of  Covenanting  forces, 
iii.  52-53 ;  seizure  of  Huntly,  56 ; 
advance  on  the  Border,  57,  60,  61  ; 
approached  for  a  conference,  61-62  ; 
Cliarles  demands  cashiering  of,  66  ; 
runaways  of,  80  ;  "  the  incident,"  93, 
95  ;  created  Earl,  1 10  ;  to  command 
in  England,  ih. ;  goes  to  Ireland, 
102  ;  operations  across  the  Border, 
1 12-1 13;  after  Marston  Moor,  116; 


kept  on  the  Border  by  Montrose, 
134,  144,  164 ;  friction  with  English 
allies,  136-137  ;  Charles's  efforts  to 
negotiate  with,  165  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  76,  77,    196-198. 

Leven,  Earl  of,  iv.  14,  19-20,  83,  IIO, 
121,   130,  149,  213. 

Lewcs,  Company  of  the,  ii.  526-527. 

Liberton,  Winram  of.'iii.  208,210-211, 
228,  242. 

Liberty,  Scottish  passion  and  struggle 
for,  i.  159,  160,  171,  230,  237,  269, 

273- 

Liddesdale,  \Vm.  Douglas,  Knight  of, 
i.  247,  251,  252,  254-259,  270. 

Ligonier,  iv.  476,  478,  493,  494. 

Lilburne,  John,  Argyll's  relations  with, 
iii.  262,  267,  268,  296  and  notes ; 
turns  out  the  Assembly,  265  ;  appre- 
hensions of,  269,  270 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  257,  266. 

Lindores,  Laurence  of,  i.  290,  309. 

Lindores  Abbey,  i.  471. 

Lindsay  (1333),  i.  248,  249. 

Lindsay,  Bp.,  ii.  465. 

Lindsay,  Lieut,,  iv.  45,  54. 

Lindsay,  Lord,  of  the  Byres  (1488),  i. 

349-350- 

Lindsay,  Lord  (1567),  supports  Lennox, 
ii.  142 ;  conspiracy  against  Riccio, 
160;  accepts  Bothwell's  challenge, 
187;  extorts  Mary's  abdication,  191 ; 
joins  band  against  Lennox,  284 ;  in 
Raid  of  Ruthven,  285  ;  Mary's  desire 
for  execution  of,  305 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  151,  219,  260-262,  269. 

Lindsay,  Lord  (1596),  ii.  398,  418-419. 

Lindsay,  Lord  (Crawford)  (1641), 
against  Montrose,  iii.  145,  146  ;  chal- 
lenged by  Argyll,  188-189  a«rf  note; 
captured,  256  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
27,  87,  112,  177,  186,  196,  284,  2S6, 
288,   301. 

Linds.iy,  Lord  (1841),  cited,  iii.  413. 

Lindsay,  Mr,  cited,  i.  161. 

Lindsay,  Alexander  de,  i.  194. 

Lindsay,  David,  i.  284. 

Lindsay,  David  (preacher),  ii.  458. 

Lindsay,  Rev.  Daviti,  ii.  300. 

Lindsay,  James,  i.  282. 

Lindsay,  John,  ii.  428 ;  scheme  of,  for 
Kirk  endowment,  402-403  ;  iii.  13. 

Lindsay,  Patrick,  iv.  430,  433. 

Lindsay,  Lady  Sophia,  iii.  368. 

Lindsay,  Walter,  ii.  40S. 

Linen  manufacture,  iv.  416-417. 

Lining,  Rev.  ,  iv.  34-35. 

Linlilhgosv — 

Bruce's  capture  of,  i.  216. 
Burning  of  (1745),  iv.  500. 
Deed  of  obligation  at,  i.  425. 


590 


INDEX. 


Linlithgow,  Earl  of  (1618),  ii.  515  ;  iii. 

14. 
Linlithgow,    Earl    of  (1679),    iii.    347, 

391  ;  iv.  30. 
Linlithgow,  Earl  of  (1715),  iv.  182,  191, 

199,  216-217,  231. 
Linton,  Lord,  iii.  159. 
Lionel  (son  of  Edward  IIL    of  Eng- 
land), i.  258,  261,  262. 
Lisle,    Lord,   i.  462,   465 ;  cited,   460, 

491. 
Lismore,  Lord.     See  O'Brien. 
Literature — 

Celtic  oral,  iv.  378. 

Post- Reformation,  paucity  of,  ii.  378. 

Revival  of,  in  i8th  century,  iv.  322, 
412. 
Little,  \Vm.,  cited,  ii.  552. 
Livingstone,  Capt.,  iv.  217. 
Livingstone,  Lady,  ii.  412,  413. 
Livingstone,  Lord  (1466),  i.  339. 
Livingstone,  Lord  (1565),  ii.  144,  162, 

229,  260. 
Livingstone,  Lord  (1689),  iii.  421. 
Livingstone,  Sir  Alexander,  of  Callen- 

der,  i.  301,  302,  320-326. 
Livingstone,  Alexander,  i.  355. 
Livingstone,  James  (son  of  Alexander 

Livingstone),  i.  326,  355. 
Livingstone,     Sir    James    (brother    of 

Alexander  Livingstone),  i.  326,  330, 

355- 

Livingstone,  Mary,  ii.  100,  132,  259. 

Livingstone,  Norman,  iii.  196. 

Livingstone,  Lt.-Col.  Sir  Thos.,  iv.  7, 
9-1 1,  14,  30,  37,  40,  42,  44. 

Livingstone,  Wm.,  ii.  233. 

Livingstone  (preacher,  of  Ancrum), 
Commissioner  to  Charles  at  Breda, 
iii.  208,  228,  231  ;  summoned  by 
Cromwell,  271  ;  Cromwell's  toler- 
ance of,  272 ;  exiled,  302 ;  cited, 
loi. 

Loch  na  Nuagh,  i.  64. 

Lochalsh,  Alastair  of,  i.  366,  370. 

Lochalsh,  Alexander  of,  i.  508. 

Lochalsh,  Sir  Donald  of,  i.  397-398. 

Loch  Awe,  Campbells  of,  i.  251. 

Lochawe,  Duncan  Campbell  of,  i.  234, 
248,  250. 

Lochbuy,  Maclean  of  (1493),  '•  3^6- 

Lochbuy,  Maclean  of  (1527),  ii.  531. 

Lochbuy,    Maclean    of  (1545),    i.   483, 

509- 
Lochbuy,   Maclean   of  (1689-1715),  iv. 

II,   196. 
Lochgarry,  .Macdonncll  of,  iv.  518-520; 

cite<l,  496,  508. 
Locliiel,  Camcion  of  (1514),  i.  398. 
Lochiel,  Cameron  of  (1545),  i.  509. 
Ltjchiel,  Cameron  of  (1590),  ii.  356. 


Lochiel,   Allan  Cameron  of  (1608),  ii. 

531,  532. 

Lochiel,  Cameron  of  (1658),  iii.  274. 

Lochiel,  Cameron  of  (1689),  quarrel 
of,  with  Glengarry,  iv.  13 ;  advice 
before  Killiecrankie,  16  ;  in  the  fight, 
18-19;  withdraws,  22;  submission 
of,  demanded  (1691),  36,  38,  40; 
estimate  of,  12;  otherwise  mentioned, 

8,37- 

Lochiel,  Cameron  of  (1706),  iv.  117, 
137,  191,  192,  196,  224,  271,  368. 

Lochiel,  Cameron  of  (1742-45),  signs 
Memorial  to  Prince  Charles,  iv.  452  ; 
true  to  honour,  i.  372 ;  iv.  453 ; 
raises  his  clan,  458-459,  471  ;  enters 
Edinburgh,  466;  at  Culloden,  512, 
529;  unsubdued,  519,  520;  death 
and  estimate  of,  521 ;  mills  establis'ned 
by,  i.  140;  otherwise  mentioned,  iv. 
439.  444.  451.  518,  530. 

Lochiel,  Camerons  of,  i.  371. 

Lochinvar,  Gordon  of  (1560),  ii.  64. 

Lochinvar,  Gordon  of  (i 613),  ii.  542. 

Lochleven,  Douglas  of.  See  Morton, 
8th  Earl  of. 

Lochnell,  Campbell  of  (1584),  ii.  355- 

356,  392. 
Lochnell,  Campbell  of  (1685),  iii.  401. 
Lochnell,  Campbell  of  (1715),  iv.  184, 

192,  196. 
Locke,  Mrs,  Knox's  letters  to,  cited,  ii. 

47.  49,  55- 
Locke,  Henry,  n.  365,  368,  379,  383, 

465- 
Locke,  John,  iv.  57,  61,  66. 
Lockhart,  Mr  (brother  of  Lockhart  of 

Carnwath),  iv.  184,  205,  210. 
Lockhart,  Col.,  iii.  176  note. 
Lockhart,  Sir  George,  iv.  6. 
Lockhart,  J.  G.,  iv.  88. 
Lockhart,  Sir  VVm.,  iv.  2,  26. 
Lockhart  of  Carnwath,  Lockhart  of  the 

Lee.     ^^1?  Carnwath,  Lee. 
Lee,  Lockhart  of  the  (1330),  i.  236. 
Lee,  Sir  James  Lockhart  of  the  (1627), 

iii.  15. 
Logan,  Alexander,  ii.  546-547. 
Logan,   John,    portioner   of   Restalrig, 

ii.  506. 
Logan,  Wm.,  ii.  547. 
Logan  of  Restalrig.     See  Restalrig. 
Logie,  Laird  of  (1592),  ii.  361. 
Logic,  Laird  of  (1707),  iv.  146. 
Logie,  Gavyn,  i.  43'- 
Logie,    ALirgaret,    nh    Drummond,    i. 

261,  264,  266. 
Loidis,  i.  93,  126. 
Lollardy,  i.  290,  365-366,  423. 
Lollius  Uri)icus,  i.  9,  19. 
Long,  Capt.,  iv.  68. 


INDEX. 


591 


Long,  Secretary,  iii.  234,  246 ;  cited, 
223. 

Longcastle,  Vaus  of,  ii.  542. 

Lord  Justicc-CIerk,  origin  of,  i.  150. 

Lords  of  Erection,  iv.  158-159. 

Lords  of  tlie  Articles — 
Abolition  of  (1690),  iv.  30. 
Appointment  of,    mode   of,    i.    268, 
353.  358 ;  ii.  5.  6 ;  iii.  20,  69  and 
note,  304. 
Grievance  as  to,  iv.  3-4. 
James  VL's  nomination  of,  by  letter, 

ii.  489. 
Mary  Stuart's  alleged  nomination  of, 

ii.  156,  161,  489. 
Origin  of,  i.  267. 

Position  and  tendency  of,  i.  146,  268, 
301. 

Lorimer,  Dr,  cited,  i.  420,  471,  485. 

Lome  (Campbell).     See  Argyll. 

Lome  (Macdouall)  (1307),  i.  212,  214, 
239;  clan  in  17 15,  iv.  193. 

Lome,  Black  Knight  of,  i.  346, 

Lome,  Sir  James  Stewart  of,  i.  322. 

Lome,  John  of,  i.  214,  225. 

Lothian — 

Eadmund's  rule  in,  i.  98. 
Feudalising  of,  i.  136. 
Indulf's  invasion  of,  i.  49. 
Kenneth  MacAlpine's  raids  in,  i.  42. 
Kenneth  IL,  question  as  to  cession 

to,  i.  50-52. 
Scotia,  enmity  against,  i.  162. 

Lothian,  Earl  of  (1646-62),  outrageous 
behaviour  of,  to  Charles  L,  iii.  175 
and  note  ;  commissioner  in  London, 
198,  201  ;  commissioner  to  Charles 
II.,  228,  233;  otherwise  mentioned, 
27,  251,  301. 

Lothian,  Earl  of  (1693),  I^.  48,  90,  105, 
106. 

Lothian,  Marquess  of  (1742),  iv.  318. 

Loudoun,  Lord  (1627),  imprisoned,  iii. 
71;  released,  76;  Chancellor,  91, 
92;  leads  Scottish  rebels,  112  ;  em- 
powered to  treat  with  Charles  I., 
i6()  and  note,  170;  the  Engagement, 
185-186,  188  ;  in  alliance  with  Crom- 
well, 195;  rates  Montrose,  219;  a 
Remonstrant,  251  ;  upbraids  Argyll, 
256  ;  forfeited,  272  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 14,  27,  34,  63,  66,  68,  70, 
102,  106,  135,  164,  172,  177,  252, 
262,   271   note,  301. 

Loudoun,  Earl  of  (1705),  iv.  loi,  103, 
no,  134,  184. 

Loudoun,  Earl  of  (1745),  iv.  482,  483, 
502-505. 

Loudoun,   Sir   Hugh   Campbell  of,   i. 

413- 
Loudoun  II ill,  i.  21 1. 

VOL,   IV. 


Louis  XL,  King  of  France,  i.  336,  338, 
342,  344,  347.  356- 

Louis  XII.,  King  of  France,  i.  374-375, 
392. 

Louis  XIII.,  King  of  France,  iii.  71. 

Louis  XIV.,  King  of  France,  relati<jns 
of,  with  Jacobites,  iv.  117,  137-138, 
141,  146-147,  149,  179;  ill-health  of, 
180;  death  of,  181,  185. 

Louis  XV.,  King  of  France,  relations 
of,  with  Prince  Charles  and  Jacobites, 
iv.  437,  442-445,  447,  472,  473. 

Loupe,  Macallester  of,  ii.  435. 

Lovat,  Eraser  of  (1544),  i.  478. 

Lovat,  Eraser  of  (1 590),  ii.  356,  393. 

Lovat,  I2th  Lord  (Simon  Eraser), 
claims  chieftainship  of  Erasers,  iv. 
93;  abducts  a  dowager,  73,  94; 
treacherous  relations  with  Jacobites 
—  "the  Queensberry  Plot,"  94-96; 
imprisoned  in  France,  96,  137-138; 
escape  of,  214  ;  leads  a  clan  for  King 
George,  213  ;  takes  Inverness,  215  ; 
in  ecclesiastical  politics,  312-313  ;  on 
the  Highlands,  366  -  367 ;  social 
policy,  366,  370,  374  ;  relations  with 
Lord  Grange,  381  ;  Lady  Gr.inge's 
abduction,  383,  385 ;  education  of 
his  sons,  395  ;  leanings  to  Jacobitism 
(1736),  428  ;  duplicity  (i745).  »•  64  ; 
iv.  461-463,  472-473 ;  capture  and 
escape,  483  ;  death  of,  521  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  241,  242,  396,  436, 

437.  439,  440,  446,  453- 
Lovat,  Master  of  (1745),  iv.  473,  482, 

483. 
Lowlands — 

Agriculture  in,  iv.  389-392. 
Characteristics  of  the  people,  iv.  390. 
Dwellings  in,  iv.  390. 
Enclosures,    resistance   to,    iv.    391- 

392. 

Food  in,  iv.  390. 

Land  tenure  in,  iv.  388-389. 
Luce,  Simeon,  cited,  i.  157. 
Lulach,  i.  53-55. 
Lumsden,  Charles,  ii.  558. 
Lundie  of  Lundie,  ii.  542. 
Lundy,  Richard  de,  i.  183. 
Lutheran  books,  enactment  against,  i. 

408,  428. 
Luxury,  early,  i.  69. 
Lyle,  Lord,  i.  349,  362. 
Lyndsay,  Sir  David,  poem  by,  i.  426  ; 

cited,    385 ;     otherwise    mentioned, 

376,  448,  475,  479. 
Lynn,  Francis,  cited,  i.  86. 

Mac.\lan,  Roderick,  i.  234. 
Macallester,  Dougal,  ii.  534. 
Macallester  of  Loupe,  ii.  435. 

2  P 


592 


INDEX. 


Macallister,  Rore,  Bp.  Elect  of  the 
Isles,  i.  509. 

Mac  Arthur,  Major,  iv,  217. 

Macartney,  Capt.,  iv.  166-167. 

Macaulay,  Lord,  cited,  iii.  392,  397, 
399,  404,  405,  412,  421,  424;  iv. 
8,  14  and  ftote,  23,  38,  39,  55,  57, 
61,  64. 

Macausland,  Alexander,  i.  294. 

M'Bain,  Donald,  cited,  iv.  17  note. 

Macbeth,  i.  53-55,  58,  169. 

M'CoU,  Allan,  iii.  132. 

M'Cormick  cited,  iv.  52. 

M'Crie,  Dr,  views  and  excommunica- 
tion of,  iv.  322-324 ;  on  declinature 
of  jurisdiction,  ii.  413-414 ;  other- 
wise cited,  48,  70,  29S,  318,  329, 
332,  349.  360,  386,  421,  486,  560; 
iii.  257  note,  299  ami  note,  347,  353, 
424. 

M'Crie,  Rev.  Thos.,  cited,  iv.  284, 
301,  310. 

M'Cullan,  Euphan,  ii.  475. 

M'Culloch,  Capt.,  iii.  116. 

Macdonald,  clan  of,  i.  417  ;  at  Falkirk, 
iv.  492,  493  ;  at  Culloden,  508,  527- 

535- 
Macdonald,  Rev.  Messrs,  cited,  i.  508, 

528-530. 

Macdonald,  Alastair  ("young  Col- 
kitto"),  adventures  of,  before  joining 
Montrose,  iii.  120-121  ;  with  Mon- 
trose, 121-122,  126,  128,  129,  130, 
133 ;  recruiting,  140,  147  ;  vvith 
Montrose,  141-144,  150;  leaves  him, 
156;  failure  in  generalship  and  retiral 
to  Ireland,  183;  mentioned,  108. 

Macdonald,  Alexander  (1286),  i.  163. 

Macdonald,  Alexander  (son  of  Maclan 
of  Glencoe),  iv.  44-45. 

Macdonald,  Capt.  Alexander,  iv.  245- 
248. 

Macdonald,  Sir  Alexander,  iv.  520. 

Macdonald,  Angus  (1599),  ii.  526,  533. 

Macdonald,  Angus  (1745),  iv.  459. 

Macdonald,  Dr  Angus,  cited,  iv.  527- 
528. 

Macdonald,  Angus  Mor  (1286),  i.  163. 

Macdonald,  Col  ("  Old  Colkitto"),  ii. 

533-535;  "'•  184. 
Macdonald,  Capt.   Donald  Koy,  cited, 

iv.  529-530.  535-. 
Macdonald,  Flora,  iv.  518. 
Macdonald,  Hugh,  cited,  i.  304,  305. 
Macdonald,  Sir  John,  iv.  458. 
Macdonald,  Ranald  (1343),  i.  256. 
Macdonald,  Ranald  (1745),  iv.  459. 
Macdonald,  Sir  Ranald,  ii.  533. 
Macdonald     of    Glcncoc,     (ilencarry, 

Keppoch,  Sleat,  (kc.     See  territorial 

titles. 


Macdonnell,  /Eneas,  iv.  496. 
Macdougals  (Macdoualls,  Macdowals), 

i.  207,  213,  235,  239,  496;  iv.  193. 
Macduff,  i.  182. 

MacEachain,  Neil,  cited,  iv.  518. 
MacEwen,    Prof.,    cited,    iv.    288-289, 

299.  304. 
MacGahan.     See  O'Gahan. 
MacGavin,  W.,  cited,  iii.  393. 
Macgillavray,  iv.  512,  513. 
Macgregor,  Clan — 

Argyll's  relations  with,  ii.  528-529. 

Feats  of  (1715),  iv.  192-193. 

"Nameless  clan,"  iv.   38,   184,   192, 
436. 

Outlawry,  descent  to,  i.  225  ;  iv.  38  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  i.    136,  183, 
368,  370. 
Macgregor,  James  Mor,  i.  12  ;  iv.  239, 

460,  469. 
Macgregor,    Rob    Roy,    iv.    184,    215, 

243  ;  cottage  of,  184,  373. 
Macgregor  of  Balhaldy.     See  Balhaldy. 
Macgregor  of  Macgregor,  Miss,   cited, 

iv.  436-437. 
yizicWeXh.  pretendants,  end  of,  i.  1 19. 
Maclan.    See  Ardnamurchan  and  Glen- 
coe. 
Mackail,  Rev.  Hugh,  iii.  312,  366;  iv. 

307. 

Mackay,   Gen.,    forces  with,   iii.    421 
movements   of,  against    Dundee,    iv. 
7-10;  disbands,   n;  marches  north, 
14-15  ;  Killiecrankie,  18-21  ;  vigorous 
tactics,  22  ;  occupies  Blair,  24. 

Mackay,  Angus  Dubh,  i.  291,  304. 

Mackays,  i.  371,  372. 

Mackennier,  John,  cited,  iv.  532-535. 

Mackenzie,  Sir  George,  appointed  Lord 
Advocate,  iii.  330 ;  action  against 
Covenanters,  364 ;  accuses  Argyll, 
368;  cited,  158,  293-296,  298,  305, 
320,  364;  iv.  159;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,   iii.   409,   419,    420,  422  ;    iv. 

397- 
Mackenzie,  John  M6r,  i.  304. 
Mackenzie,  Kenneth  Mor,  i.  304. 
Mackenzie,  Roderick,  iv.  64,  101-103. 
Mackenzie,  Stuart,  cited,  iv.  494. 
Mackenzie    of    Fraserdale,    &c.      See 

Fraserdale,  <S:c. 
Mackenzies,  iv.  223,  368,  369. 
M'Kerrow,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  303,  304,  306, 

310,  320. 
Mackinnon  cited,  iv.  124. 
Mackintosh,  Brigadier,  at  Inverness,  iv. 

182  ;  at  Kelso,  200,  204  ;  at  Preston, 

208-210;  escapes,  240;  at  Glenshiel, 

272. 
Mackintosh,  Fraser,  cited,  i.  298. 
Mackintosh,  Sir  James,  iv.  250. 


INDEX. 


593 


Mackintosh,  Lachlan,  iv.  502. 
Mackintoshes,  ii.  536,  537. 
Macky  cited,  iv.  420. 
MacLachlan,  C<il.,  iv.  482. 
M'Lauchlan,   Margaret,   iii.    384,    386, 

3^9,  396. 
Maclaurin,  Prof.  Colin,  iv.  406,  465. 
Maclean,  Col.,  iv.  1S7,  194,  201,  223. 
Maclean,    Sir   Hector   (1745),    iv.    453, 

459- 
Maclean,  Sir  John,  iv.  367. 
Maclean  of  Dowait,  Lochbuy,  &c.     See 

Dowart,  Lochbuy,  Sec. 
Macleans — 

"Another  for  Hector,"  iii.  254. 

CuUoden,  at,  iv.  368,  512,  529. 

Dundee's  company  of,  iv.  11. 

Glenrinnes,  at,  ii.  392. 

Inverkeithing,  at,  iii.  253. 

Loyalty  of,  iv.  367. 

Ravages  by,  i.  323,  416. 

Spartan  tradition  of,  ii.  391. 
M'Lennan,  J.  F. ,  cited,  i.  19. 
Macleod   (1504-46)    (uncle   of  Donald 

Dubh),    i.  397-398,  483,   508,    509; 

ii.  3. 
Macleod  (1744-45),  iv.  451,  453,  458, 

471,  502,  505. 
Macleod,  Lord,  iv.  483,  490-491,  506; 

cited,  482. 
Macleod,  Alexander,  iv.  517. 
Macleod,  Murdoch,  ii.  527. 
Macleod,  Neil,  ii.  527,  531, 
Macleod,    Roderick    (W.S.),    iv.    383- 

384. 
Macleod  of  Macleod,  iv.  482,  483. 
Macmillan,    Rev.   John,  iv.    130,    145- 

146,  160-162,  305. 
Macnabs,  iii.  \},o  arid  note,  1 50. 
MacNeil,  i.  483. 
Macpherson,  Cluny  (1745),  iv-  453-454, 

463,  486,  499,  504,  518. 
Macpherson,    Cluny  (present    day),    i. 

127. 
Macphersons,  i.  496  ;  iv.  347. 
MacQuhirrie,  Father,  cited,  ii.  494. 
MacRinimon     (M'Rimin),     Piper,     iv. 

376-377,  502. 
Macsorley.     See  Dunluce. 
MacVurich  cited,  i.  507. 
M'Ward  (preacher),  iii.  311,  317,  3154, 

356. 
MacVVilliam    prdtendanis,    end    of,    i. 

119. 
Madach,  1.  53-54. 
Madeleine,  Queen,  i.  441,  442. 
Maderty,  blaster  of,  iii.  122. 
Mi^atce,  i.  9-10. 
Magnus,   Dr,  i.  407-409,  411,  414,  415, 

419,  505- 
Magnus,  King  of  Man,  i.  122-123. 


Magnus  Barefoot,  King  of  Norway,  i.  99. 

Mahon,  Lord  (2nd  Farl  Stanhope),  iv. 
250  ;  cited,  239,  445,  448,  528. 

Maid  of  Norway.     See  Margaret. 

Mailsnechtan  of  Moray,  i.  93,  126. 

Mains,  Douglas  of,  ii.  304. 

Mainville,  ii.  289-291,  293,  294. 

Mair,  Rev.  ,  iv.  301,  319. 

Maitland,  F-.  W.,  cited,  i.  500. 

Maitland,  Lord.     See  Lauderdale. 

Maitland,  Sir  John  (of  Thirlstane), 
joins  d'Aubigny's  faction,  ii.  268 ; 
Walsingham's  letter  to,  334  ;  detested 
by  nobles,  344-345-  3^7 ;  opposed 
to  the  Danish  marriage,  348  ;  in  the 
band  against  Moray,  356-358  ;  dis- 
liked by  the  Queen,  366,  367,  374, 
395  ;  returns  to  Court  and  again 
retires,  367  ;  dismissal  of,  insisted  on 
by  Bothwell,  373 ;  joins  James  at 
Loch  Leven,  376 ;  death  of,  396 ; 
estimate  of,  338,  396 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  250,  321,  344,  353,  375. 

Maitland,  William.     See  Lethington. 

Major,  John,  religious  views  of,  i. 
424;  cited,  314;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 430;  ii.   5,  22. 

Makgill,  James,  ii.  157,  160,  219,  220. 

Malcolm  I.,  King,  i.  47-49. 

Malcolm  IL,  King,  i.  52-53. 

Malcolm  Canmore,  King,  rivalry  of, 
with  Macbeth,  i.  54-55  ;  reign  of,  89- 
90;  marriages  of,  90,  126;  ravages 
Northumbria,  90,  91,  93;  does  hom- 
age to  William  I.,  91-94,  126;  sub- 
mission at  Abernethy,  169  ;  English 
manors  t)f,  92  ;  agreement  with 
William  Rufus,  93 ;  relations  with 
him,  169-170;  on  ecclesiastical  re- 
forms, 96-97  ;  characteristics  of,  95 ; 
sons  of,  97-98. 

Malcolm  MacIIeth  (grandson  of  Lu- 
lach),  i.  103,  127,  128. 

Malcolm  the  Maiden,  King,  i.  102, 
108,  iio-iii,  128. 

Malherbe,  Gilbert,  i.  193. 

Malignants,  iii.  104,201,  207;  "purg- 
ing '"  of,  232,  237. 

Malise.     See  Strathearn. 

Malony,  Sir  Thos.,  cited,  iii.  I. 

Malpeter  MacLoen,  i.  98,  136. 

Malt  tax.     See  under  Taxation. 

Mammet  of  Scotland,  i.  2S5-286,  298. 

Man,  Isle  of — 

Bruce's  recovery  of,  i.  216. 
Edward  III.'s  seizure  of,  i.  247. 
Lome's  recovery  of,   from   Bruce,  i. 

225. 
Magnus  Barefoot's   subjection  of,   i, 

99- 

Mann,  Sir  Horace,  cited,  iv.  445. 


594 


INDEX. 


Manslaying — 

Fines  for,  i.  8l,  83-84,  137,  160-161, 

Kin  fends  for,  i.  147-148. 
Mar,   Earl  of  (Regent,   1332),   i.    243- 

245,  502. 
Mar,  Earl  of  (Talhot),  i.  245,  249,  250. 
Mar,    Earl    of    (Alexander    Stewart), 

marries  Countess  of  Mar,  i.  284  ;  at 

Harlaw,  291-292 ;  at  Inverlochy,  305  ; 

death  of,  311  ;  mentioned,  301. 
Mar,  Earl  of  (brother  of  James  III.),  i. 

344,  351- 

Mar,  6th  Earl  of  (6th  Lord  Erskine),  in 
charge  of  Edinburgh  Castle,  ii.  34, 
58,  63  ;  in  charge  of  Stirling  Castle, 
182  ;  elected  Regent,  238 ;  intrigue 
for  Mary's  execution,  242  ;  death  of, 
243  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  30,  150, 
165,   166. 

Mar,  7th  Earl  of,  covets  guardianship 
of  James  VI.,  ii.  260;  coup  d'etat, 
261  ;  joins  band  against  Lennox, 
284 ;  in  Raid  of  Ruthven,  285-287  ; 
placed  in  ward,  294  ;  forfeited,  300  ; 
extradition  of,  desired  by  James,  304  ; 
returns  from  exile  and  regains  power, 
315-316  ;  Prince  Henry  in  the  charge 
of,  384,  395 ;  in  the  Kirk  tumult, 
419  ;  with  James  in  the  Gowrie  plot, 
452,  453.  455.  457.  462  ;  the  Queen's 
intrigues  against,  477  ;  embassy  to 
England,  470-472,  474  ;  James's  trust 
in,  477  ;  trial  of  the  preachers,  485, 
487  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  258,  295- 

297.  309,  347.  358,  367.  376,  391 ; 

iv.   256. 

Mar,  loth  Earl  of,  iii.  333,  419-421  ; 
iv.   7. 

Mar,  nth  Earl  of  (Bobbing  John), 
young  Argyll's  relations  with  (1705), 
iv.  105;  Union  Commissioner,  no, 
III  ;  forwards  Highland  submissions 
to  George  I.,  173;  slighted  by 
George  I.,  173,  174;  raises  the 
standard  for  James,  176,  179,  181, 
182  ;  commission  from  James,  176- 
177;  "new  commission"  of,  181; 
his  forces,  184-185  ;  at  Perth,  185, 
196,  199,  215;  dilatoriness  of,  185, 
189-191,  200,  211;  position  in  Oc- 
tolier,  196-197 ;  feint  on  Stirling, 
197-200  ;  letters  to  Korster,  206,  210  ; 
suspected,  2II-2I2;  at  Sheriffmuir, 
216-218 ;  neglectand mismanagement, 
219  ;  opposed  by  "Grumblers'  Club," 
220 ;  attempts  to  treat  with  Argyll, 
221  ;  meets  James,  222,  224  ;  "  cap- 
tures "  him,  225  ;  James's  confidence 
in,  ih.,  260,  269,  278,  336;  flight 
with  James,  229 ;  in  fav(jur,  233  ; 
Clanranald's  letter  to,  244  ;  draws  up 


James's  Apology,  250 ;  overtures  to 
Argj'll,  251  ;  letter  to  Oxford,  ib.; 
relations  with  Argyll,  259 ;  rumoured 
defection,  268  ;  disclaims  desire  of 
office,  270  ;  suspected  by  James,  332, 
335  ;  intrigues  against  James's  minis- 
ters, 335,  347,  351  ;  pensioned  by 
British  Government,  336,  337  ;  con- 
tinued Jacobite  activities,  337;  al- 
leged betrayal  of  Atterbury,  fb.,  339- 
342  note,  364 ;  memorial  to  Duke 
of  Orleans,  342-345 ;  rebukes  James 
anent  the  clans,  346 ;  estimate  of, 
87  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  244  ;  iv. 
107,  116,  117,  134,  137,  152-153,  163, 
164,    170,   227,  237,  248,  264,  269, 

275.  333- 
March,  Earl  of  (Patrick),  i.  178. 
March,  Earl  of  (1332),  in  Edward  III.'s 

favour,  i.  249 ;  on  Scottish  side,  251, 

252,  261-263,  270  ;  at  Neville's  Cross, 

257-258. 
March,  Earl  of,  Rothesay's  slight  to,  i. 

285-286,  298 ;  reconciled  to  Albany, 

289  ;  mentioned,  290. 
March,  Earl  of  (1423),  i.  295,  302,  31 1, 

325- 

March,  Earl  of  (1583),  ii.  292. 

March,  Earl  of  (1702),  iv.  83. 

March,  House  of,  founding  of,  i.  92. 

March,  Lady,  ii.  279. 

Marches  Courts,  i.  297. 

Marchmont  (1745),  iv.  472, 

Marchmont,  Earl  of  (Sir  Patrick  Hume 
of  Polwarth),  differences  of,  with 
Argyll,  iii.  398-403;  escapes,  403- 
404  ;  made  Earl,  404  ;  in  the  Privy 
Council,  iv.  2  ;  deserts  the  Club,  29  ; 
secures  hanging  of  Aikenhead,  57  ; 
Commissioner,  72  ;  Chancellor,  80  ; 
Abjuration  Bill  of,  83,  90  ;  introduces 
•'  tacking,"  99 ;  in  financial  embarrass- 
ment, III;  money  paid  to,  at  the 
Union,  134  ;  cited,  iii.  397,  399,  403, 
404  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  377,  390, 
391  ;  iv.  26,  27,  48,  90,  122,  123. 

Margaret,  Princess  (daughter  of  James 
I-),  i-  307.  312. 

Margaret,  Princess  (Sister  of  James 
HI.),  i.  347,  352. 

Margaret,  Queen  (wife  of  Malcolm 
Canmore),  i.  37,  90,  95-97. 

Margaret,  Queen  (wife  of  Alexander 
III.),  i.  121-122. 

Margaret,  Queen  (Maid  of  Norway),  i. 
124,  130,  145,  162-164,  166,  197, 
340. 

Margaret,  Queen  (wife  of  James  IV.), 
marriage  of,  with  James,  i.  372-373  ; 
marriage  with  .\ngus,  393  ;  refuses  to 
surrender    her    sons,    394 ;    flies    to 


INDEX. 


595 


England,  395 ;  at  Henry's  court, 
396  ;  returns  to  Scotland,  397  ;  in- 
clines to  Arran  and  Albany,  39S-400, 
402  ;  efforts  for  divorce,  398,  408  ; 
advises  Surrey,  402 ;  alleged  cove- 
nant with  Albany,  403;  "erection'  ' 
of  James  V.,  406;  duplicity  and  in- 
trigues, ib.,  443;  intrigues  with 
France,  406-407 ;  obtains  divorce 
and  marries  Lord  Methven,  408 ; 
joined  by  James,  412 ;  correspond- 
ence with  Henry  (1535-1536),  437; 
seeks  divorce  from  Lord  Methven, 
443  ;  death  of,  451  ;  avarice  of,  398, 
404,  409 ;  chaplain  of,  425  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  392,  404,  411,  418. 

Margaret,  Queen  of  England  (wife  of 
Henry  VL),  i.  334-335.  337- 

Margaret,  Queen  of  Norway  (wife  of 
King  Eric),  i.    122,   124. 

Marie  de  Couci,  Queen,  i.  120. 

Marie  of  Vend6me,   Princess,   i.    441, 

505- 

Marischal,  Earl,  office  of,  i.  154. 

Marischal,  Earl  (Keith)  (1544).  i-  477, 
492  ;  ii.  8,  66. 

Marischal,  Earl  (1583),  ii.  293,  347- 
348,   393. 

Marischal,  Earl  (1639),  iii.  58,  77,  112, 
137,  256. 

Marischal,  Earl  (1702),  protests  against 
the  Union,  iv.  122;  shirks,  144; 
gives  assurances,  147 ;  expectations 
formed  of,  182 ;  at  Dunblane,  199 ; 
quarrel  with  Iluntly,  211  ;  at  Sheriff- 
muir,  216-218  ;  refuses  to  join  James 
in  flight,  229,  250  ;  feud  with  Mar, 
244  ;  goes  to  Avignon,  251  ;  expedi- 
tion from  Spain,  265-272,  279 ;  in 
Rome,  426 ;  relations  with  Sempill 
and  Balhaldy,  440  ;  "  the  honourable 
fool,"  441  ;  without  instructions,  447- 
449  ;  Hook's  estimate  of,  118;  other- 
wise mentioned,  82,  117,  133,  137, 
181,    191,    220,  229,  232,  450,   452, 

463,  474- 

Marischal,  Master  of  (1568),  ii.  219. 

Markets,  i.  142,  148. 

Marlborough,  Duchess  of,  iv.  152. 

Marlborough,  Duke  of  (John  Churchill), 
Union  Commissioner,  iv.  84 ;  rela- 
tions with  the  Chevalier,  174,  180; 
otherwise  mentioned,  iii.  413,  414; 
iv.  So,  113,  152,  171,  190,20(5,  211, 
227,  232-233,  236. 

Marston  Moor,  iii.  116. 

Martin  V.,  Pope,  i.  309. 

Mary,  Princess  (sister  of  James  HL),  i. 

335,  339,  340. 
Mary  of  Bourbon,  i.  437,  438. 
Mary  of  Gueldres,  i.  334-338,  352. 


Mary  of  Guise,   lands  in   Scotland,  i. 
445  ;    interview   with    Sadleyr,    466  ; 
held    by    Douglas    jxirty,    478,    479 ; 
removes  Mary  Stuart  to  Inchmahone, 
ii.  II;  on   the  French,   12-14;  goes 
to  France,    16  ;  returns,   17  ;   refuses 
massacre  of  Protestants,  67  ;  intrigues 
against  Arran,    16-17;   assumes   Re- 
gency,   17;    preference    for    P'rench 
Councillors,  23,   24  ;  conciliates  Pro- 
testants, 25,  29 ;  on  portents,  34-35  ; 
defied   by    Protestants,  43-44  ;   sum- 
monses against  preachers,  47-50  ;  on 
Protestant  excesses  at  Perth,  51  ;  in 
Perth,   53 ;    retires   to   Dunbar,    56 
fortifies     Leith,     60 ;     deposed     by 
nobles,  61,  62,  71  ;  retires  to  Edin 
burgh  Castle,  63 ;  besieged,   64-65 
death    of,    66-67  ;     Knox's    insinua 
tions  as  to,  455-456,  472  ;   ii.   2,  6 
charges  of  perfidy  against,  53-54,  56, 
59-60 ;    efibrts  of,   for  poor   tenants 
494  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  18,  22,  27 
63,  276. 

Mary  of  Modena,  on  her  son,  iv.  169 
dowry  of,  173;  poor  and  ill,  180 
meeting  with  her  son  (1715),  187 
188 ;  receives  Marshal  Keith,  232 
on  Bolingbroke,  235  ;  James's  plans 
unsafe  with,  256  ;  death  of,  260-261 
otherwise  mentioned,  94,  96,  117, 
168,  179,  251,  252. 

Mary  of  Orange,  Queen,  iii.  412,  422. 

Mary  Stuart,  Queen,  birth  of,  i.  455  ; 
English  marriage  project,  458,  465, 
468 ;  ii.  2,  6 ;  treaty  negotiations,  i. 
468-472  ;  Henry's  schemes  for  pos- 
session of,  462 ;  taken  to  Stirling, 
469 ;  coronation  of,  472  ;  removed 
to  Inchmahone,  ii.  11;  lands  in 
France,  13;  revocation  of  grants  by, 
24  ;  marriage  with  the  Dauphin,  36, 
39 ;  refuses  Lord  James  Stewart 
earldom  of  Moray,  52 ;  attitude  to- 
wards Arran,  57,  95  ;  assumes  arms 
of  England,  58 ;  Treaty  of  Edin- 
burgh (1560),  67-69  ;  refuses  ratifica- 
tion, 72,  94,  98  ;  receives  Elizabeth's 
envoys,  96  ;  suitors  of,  96-97  ;  warned 
against  Lord  James,  97 ;  Lord 
James's  alleged  betrayal,  97-98,  102- 
103  ;  refuses  to  meet  Elizabeth,  98  ; 
interview  with  Throckmorton,  99 ; 
pronouncement  on  religion,  104 ; 
returns  to  Scotland,  loo-ioi,  104; 
hears  mass,  105 ;  interview  with 
Knox,  105-107  ;  announces  purpose 
of  defending  "  Kirk  of  Rome,"  106, 
114,  156  ;  entry  into  Edinburgh,  107  ; 
letter  to  Elizabeth,  no;  interview 
refused   by   Ehzabeth,    115;    in  the 


596 


INDEX. 


north,  117;  insulted  by  Hepburn, 
id.;  overthrow  of  Huntly,  117-121  ; 
refuses  to  execute  Privy  Council 
nobles,  122,  157;  stipulates  for 
private  admonitions,  123,  404  ;  Dud- 
ley marriage  project,  125,  130,  133- 
I37>  139  ;  iiagsd  ^t,  127  ;  on  Knox's 
convocation  of  her  lieges,  131 ;  on 
return  of  Lennox,  134  ;  passion  for 
Darnley,  135,  138,  141  ;  estrange- 
ment from  Moray,  138  ;  betrothed 
to  Darnley,  139 ;  summons  Bothwell 
to  trial,  140  ;  demands  of  the  Assem- 
bly, 143  ;  rides  to  Callendar  House, 

144  ;  has  Protestant  agitators  arrested, 
i/>.;    efforts   for    peace   with   Moray, 

145  ;  outlaws  him,  id.;  marriage  with 
Darnley,  146  ;  restores  Lord  George 
Huntly  and  recalls  Bothwell,  148 ; 
reply    to    Elizabeth's    remonstrance, 

id.;  pursuing  rebels,  149-150; 
differences  with  Darnley,  151  ;  preg- 
nant, 155,  162  ;  nominates  Lords  of 
the  Articles,  156,  161,  489;  alleged 
subscription  to  Catholic  League,  157  ; 
murder  of  Riccio,  161-162  ;  escapes 
with  Darnley,  163 ;  compelled  to 
pardon  Riccio's  murderers,  342 ; 
makes  her  will,  164 ;  supports 
Moray,  165;  birth  of  her  son,  id.; 
breach  with  Darnley,  166,  170  ; 
efforts  at  reconciliation,  167 ;  ques- 
tion of  foreknowledge  of  his  murder, 
169,  171-172,  176-177 ;  "  Casket 
Letters,"  see  that  title ;  illness, 
170 ;  "  Protestation  of  Huntly  and 
Argyll"  sent  by,  1 70;  restores  Abp. 
Hamilton  and  revokes  the  decree, 
173;  at  Kirk-o'-Field,  174-175; 
letter  to  Beaton  after  Darnley's 
murder,  180- 181  ;  caricatures  pla- 
carded against,  181,  182;  abduction 
by  Bothwell,  184-185  ;  passion  for 
him,  185-186;  marriage  with  him, 
186  ;  surrenders  at  Carberry,  187  ; 
declines  to  give  up  Bothwell,  188  ; 
hooted  by  Edinburgh  rabble,  id. ; 
taken  to  Lochleven,  189 ;  general 
rage  against,  191  ;  asserts  pregnancy 
by  Bothwell,  191,  218;  signs  abdica- 
tion, 191  ;  treachery  of  her  party, 
192  ;  interview  with  Moray,  //'. ; 
appoints  him  Regent,  193  ;  escapes 
from  Lochleven,  196  ;  at  Langside, 
196-197  ;  flies  to  Workington,  197  ; 
asks  in  vain  an  interview  with  Eliza- 
beth, 197-199,  209;  ap]ieals  to  for- 
eign powers,  200;  Norfolk  niairiage 
project,  202,  203,  215,  217-219; 
refused  a  nuldic  hearing,  204,  206  ; 
*'  Articles      against,    207    and  note, 


208 ;  huddling  up  of  the  inquiry, 
209  ;  threatened  by  Elizabeth,  213- 
214;  at  bay,  214;  detestation  of 
Lethington,  189,  219,  222  ;  removed 
to  Tut  bury  (Feb.  1569),  214;  quiets 
her  party,  216  ;  hears  Protestant  ser- 
mons, 217  ;  release  of,  desired  by 
Elizabeth,  217-218,  223;  Norfolk 
marriage  project  discovered  by  Eliz- 
abeth, 222 ;  removed  to  Tutbury 
(Sept.),  id.  ;  pensions  Moray's  mur- 
derers, 226  ;  joined  by  Kirkcaldy, 
229  ;  negotiation  with  Cecil  at  Chats- 
worth,  232  ;  Norfolk  marriage  project 
played  with  by  Cecil,  232  ;  Anjou 
marriage  project,  233,  234  ;  Ridolphi 
plot  (1571),  234-235,  239-240  ;  loss  of 
Dumbarton,  235  ;  Elizabeth's  intrigue 
for  execution  of,  242,  243  ;  mistrusts 
Morton's  advances,  259  ;  intrigue  for 
conveying  James  to  France,  262 ; 
letters  to  James  not  delivered,  264  ; 
"Association"  scheme,  278,  291, 
305,  308  ;  plots  with  Mendoza,  279- 
282  ;  Elizabeth's  cat-and-mouse  policy 
as  to,  289,  291,  31 1 -31 2;  Cecil's 
scheme  to  separate  James  from,  304  ; 
James's  treachery  to,  306 ;  at  Wing- 
field,  311;  sent  to  Tutbury,  312; 
removed  to  Chartley,  319  ;  the  Bab- 
ington  plot,  319-323;  condemned  to 
death,  322  ;  Scottish  nobles'  efforts 
for,  323-324;  executed,  330;  vScot- 
tish  indignation,  333 ;  estimate  of, 
40,  185,  330 ;  Godscroft's  estimate 
of,  561-562;  Knox's  sneer,  at,  67; 
scandalous  charges  against,  i.  39-40  ; 
ii.  140,  141,  149,  159,  167,  170,  173  ; 
four  Maries  of,  13,  100;  religious 
and  ecclesiastical  policy  of,  104,  138, 
144,  148,  155,  156;  iv.  158;  absence 
of  contemporary  Scottish  sentiment 
for,  ii.  250 ;  discovery  and  failure  of 
intrigues  of,  262-263  ;  jewels  of,  250- 
251;  otherwise  mentioned,  i.  466; 
ii.   279,  494. 

Mary  Tudor,  Queen  of  England,  acces- 
sion of,  ii.  17,  27;  marriage,  24; 
Knox's  tract  against,  27-28  ;  death 
of,  44  ;  mentioned,  440. 

Mason  (diplomatist),  ii.   16-17. 

Mason,  A.  E.  W.,  transcript  by,  iv. 
248  note. 

Mason,  Sir  John,  ii.  22. 

Masson,  I)r,  cited,  ii.  493,  506,  553  ; 
iii.  8,  10  note. 

Mather,  Cotton,  iii.  340. 

Malhieson,  Mr,  cited,  iii.  201  ;  iv, 
124. 

Matilda  (Eadgyth,  wife  of  Henry  I.  of 
England),  i.  99,  128. 


INDEX. 


597 


Matilda,  Empress,  i.  103,  107,  128. 

Matilda,  Queen  (wife  of  David  I.),  i. 
102. 

Matilda,  Queen  of  England  (wife  of 
Stephen),  i.  107,  128. 

Matriarchy,  i.  4-5,  28-29,  36.  3^.  7^- 

Matthew,  Toby,  Dean  of  Durham,  ii. 
374  ;  cited,  372-373- 

Matthew  of  Westminster,  cited,  i.  203, 
237,  238,  49S. 

Mauchline  Kirk,  i.  157,  485. 

Maule,  Mr,  iii.  94. 

Maule,  Henry,  iv.  132. 

Mauvissiere,  ii.  151,  152,  290  ;  cited, 
312. 

Maxwell  (officer),  iv.  487. 

Maxwell  (preacher),  iii.  19. 

Maxwell,  Capt. ,  ii.  552. 

Maxwell,  Lord  (1466),  i.  339. 

Maxwell,  Lord  (1528),  i.  412,  415. 

Maxwell,  Lord  (1542),  at  Sol  way  Moss, 
i.  457  ;  in  captivity,  461  ;  treason 
of,  462,  469  ;  in  prison,  475  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  465,  483. 

Maxwell,  Lord  (1548),  ii.  12. 

Maxwell,  6th  Lord.     See  Morton. 

Maxwell,  Lord  (son  of  the  Morton 
Maxwell),  ii.  524-525. 

Maxwell,  Master  of  (1560),  ii.  66. 

RL-xxwell,  Rev. cited,  iv.  153. 

Maxwell,  Sir  Eustace,  i.  246,  251. 

Maxwell,  Herbert  (1291),  i.  172. 

Maxwell,  Sir  Herbert,  cited,  i.  148, 
191,  237,  238,  240,  494. 

Maxwell,  Sir  James,  iii.  114. 

Maxwell,  Sir  John  (1300),  i.  190. 

Maxwell,  Sir  John  (138S),  i.  282. 

Maxwell  of  Kirkconnell.  See  Kirk- 
connell. 

May,  Surgeon,  iv.  103-105. 

Meggatdale  gold-mining,  ii.  553. 

Meldrum,  Seton  of,  i.  443,  444. 

Melfort,  iii.  408,  413,  417,  420,  422; 
iv.  7.  13.  15.  229, 

Melmare,  i.  97. 

Melrose,  founding  of,  i.  loi. 

Melrose,  Earl  of  (Sir  Thos.  Hamilton — 
Tarn  o'  the  Cowgate),  suspected  of 
Catholicism,  ii.  403 ;  trial  of  the 
preachers,  485-486  ;  report  for  Union 
Commissioners,  500 ;  Secretary  of 
State,  504  ;  Secretary  (1625),  iii.  7  ; 
deprived  of  Secretaryship,  9  ;  siisjgests 
a  Scottish  Parliament,  14 ;  advance- 
ment of,  ii.  398  ;  estimate  of,  480 ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  516,  569, 
574;  iii.    II,    15. 

Melrose  Abbey — 

Bruce's  heart  buried  in,  i.  236. 
Douglas  of  Liddesdale  buried  in,  i. 
259- 


Douglas  of  Otterburn   buried   in,   i. 

283. 
Edward  IL's  destruction  of,  i.  231. 
Style  of,  i.  158. 
Wrecke<l  by  English  (1545),  i.  480. 

Melrose  Chronicle  cited,  i.  130,  147. 

Melville,  Earl  of,  Secretaiy,  iv.  2  ; 
Royal  Commissioner,  28,  29,  31,  36  ; 
in  disfavour,  36 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 5,  10,  83. 

Melville,  Andrew,  rise  of,  ii.  255, 
257  ;  career  of,  256  ;  conviction  by 
Privy  Council,  298  ;  interdicted  from 
preaching,  330 ;  insolent  behaviour 
to  James,  410-411  ;  made  Dean  of 
the  Faculty  of  Theology,  430  ;  gated, 
475  ;  maltreated  by  James,  489-490  ; 
warded  and  banished,  490-491,  552; 
University  work,  559  ;  financial  in- 
efficiency, iv.  403  ;  deprived  of  rec- 
torship (1597),  ii.  560;  estimate  of, 
256  ;  scholarship  of,  378  ;  iv.  399  ; 
cited,  ii.  277  ;  book  bill  of,  558 ; 
Book  of  Discipline  of,  158  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,   283-2S4,    297,   317-319, 

354-  364.  393.  397.  404,  429.  43^- 

Melville,  James  (murderer  of  Beaton), 
i.  489. 

Melville,  James  (preacher),  in  exile,  ii. 
304 ;  on  murder  of  Guise,  343  ;  ad- 
vises excommunication  of  Abp. 
Adamson,  350  ;  excommunicates 
Catholic  nobles,  379 ;  on  Huntly's 
return,  410;  conceals  preachers, 
422  ;  maltreated  by  James,  489-490  ; 
book  bill  of,  558 ;  University  work, 
559-560 ;  cited  on  the  Armada,  342  ; 
on  the  Assembly  of  Perth,  429  ; 
otherwise  cited,  359,  419,  485,  525, 
551,  560;  otherwise  mentioned,  317, 
318,  364,  393,  397,  470,  473,  484. 

Melville,  Sir  James,  taken  witli  Mary  by 
Bothwell,  ii.  185;  on  Kirkcaldy  of 
Grange,  249-250;  cited,  134,  153, 
292  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  165,  372. 

Melville,  Patrick,  ii.  559. 

Melville,  Robert,  agent  for  Mary's 
rebels,  ii.  15 1  ;  on  Casket  Letters, 
'91.  563-565  ;  sent  by  Mary  to  Eliza- 
beth, 204  ;  examined  as  to  Mary's 
jewels,  250 ;  joins  d'Aubigny's  faction, 
268;  relations  with  Gowrie,  297; 
embassy  to  Elizabeth  for  Mary's  life, 
325-327;  mission  to  Elizabeth  (1593), 
366  -  367  ;  cited,  202,  203,  205  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  187,  223,  248, 

249.  293.  358; 
Mendoza,  Mary's  communications  and 
plots    with,    ii.    279-282,     319-320 ; 
cited,   285-286,    313-314;   otherwise 
mentioned,  2S7,  298. 


598 


INDEX. 


Menteith,  Earl  of  ( Murdoch,  Muryoch), 
i.  230,  240,  245. 

Menteith,  Earl  of  (d.  1333),  i.  249. 

Menteith,  Sir  John,  career  of,  i.  194- 
195 ;  betrayal  of  Wallace,  ib,,  iii. 
216,  218;  rewards  to,  195,  201; 
summoned  to  Edward's  Parliament, 
200 ;  granted  earldom  of  Lennox, 
206 ;  supports  Bruce,  215 ;  men- 
tioned, 495. 

Menzies  (Jacobite  agent)  cited,  iv.  237, 

245- 
Menzies,  Prof.,  iii.  252,  271. 
Menzies,  Elizabeth  (?Jean  Brown),  iii. 

393- 
Mercer,  John,  i.  268. 

Merchetum,  i.  161. 
Merchiston.     See  Napier. 
"Mercurius  Politicus"  cited,  iii.  205. 
Meston,  Rev.  (Jacobite  poet),  iv. 

410. 
Methven,  Lord  (Henry  Stewart),  i.  406, 

408,  443. 
Methven,  Paul  (preacher),  summoned, 

ii.    43,    47;    penance    of,    165-166; 

otherwise  mentioned,  73,    126. 
Mews,  Capt.  Peter,  iii.  270-271. 
Mewtas,  Sir  Peter,  ii.  9,  107. 
Michael  (ship),  i.  374. 
Michell,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  530-531. 
Middle  classes  in  feudal  times,  i.  138- 

139- 

Middlemore  (diplomatist),  ii.  199. 

Middleton,  Capt.,  iv.  47. 

Middleton,  Col.,  iv.  180,  259. 

Middleton,  Col.  (of  Bass  Rock  exploit), 
iv.  46-47. 

Middleton,  Major,  on  Covenanters' 
side,  iii.  59  note  ;  meeting  with  Mon- 
trose (1646),  176  and  note ;  released 
from  excommunication,  249 ;  captured 
at  Worcester  fight,  258 ;  arrives  in 
Scotland  (1654),  271  ;  defeated  at 
Lochgarry,  273  ;  leaves  Scotland, 
274;  Sharpe's  relations  with  (1660), 
290-292;  Commissioner  in  Parlia- 
ment (1661),  293  ;  schemes  against 
Lauderdale,  301  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 184,  190,  192,  247,  248,  265- 
266,  268,  270,  295,  298,  313. 

Middleton,  Mr,  iv.  334. 

Millar,  A.  IL,  cited,  iv.  17  note. 

Miller,  Bp.,  iv.  333-335. 

Milne,  Walter,  ii.  42-43,  70. 

Milnlon,  Whilford  of,  ii.  259. 

Milton,    Lord    (Andrew   Fletcher),   iv. 

435- 
Mmmg,  ii.  553. 

Minlf),  Stewart  of,  ii.  216,  219. 

Mirabel,  iv.  496,  503. 

Miracles,  i.  38-39,  70-71. 


Mitchell,  Dr,  cited,  ii.  76-77  ;  iii.  201. 

Mitchell,  Mr  (1717),  iv.  283. 

Mitchell,  James  (preacher),  iii.  317-318, 
330-332 ;  iv.  46. 

Moffat,  Father,  ii.  507,  508. 

Mohun,  Lord,  iv.  100,  166-167. 

Moir,  Rev.  Thos.,  ii.  547. 

Molloy,  Sergeant,  iv.  462. 

Mompesat,  ii.  57. 

Monasteries — 
Art  in,  i.  75-76. 
Carthusian    monastery    founded    by 

James  L,  i.  310. 
Columban,  i.  75. 

Laxity  of,  in  Bede's  time,  i.  70-72. 
Schools  under,  i.  157. 

Moncrief,  Laird  of,  ii.  559. 

Moncrief,  John,  ii.  455,  460. 

Moncrief,  Rev.  ,  iv.  301,  319-320. 

Money,  scarcity  of,  iv.  65,  416. 

Monk,  Gen.,  at  Dundee,  iii.  128  note ; 
storms  Dundee,  256-257 ;  receives 
Huntly's  capitulation,  261  ;  Argyll's 
relations  with,  262,  267,  273-275, 
296  and  notes;  administration  of, 
264,  272 ;  campaign  against  Glen- 
cairn  and  Middleton,  273  ;  restores 
Rumpish  Parliament,  278 ;  relations 
with  Sharp,  285  ;  procures  Argyll's 
condemnation,  296  -  297  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  196,  232,  241,  255,  257 
ttote,  270,  271,  283. 

Monmouth,  Duke  of,  sent  against  Cov- 
enanters, iii.  348,  350 ;  Bothwell 
Bridge,  351-352;  fall  from  power, 
356 ;  standing  of,  398 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  369,  375,  381,  397. 

Monro,  Capt.  (Cameronian),  iv.  23. 

Monroe,  Sir  George,  iii.  108,  191-192, 
196,  230,  247,  26S,  271,  306. 

Mons  Graupius,  i.  7-S,  18. 

Montacute,  William  de,  i.  503. 

Montagu,  Lady  Mary  Wortley,  iv.  351. 

Montague,  Bp. ,  iii.  6. 

Montalembert,  Andr^  de  (Sieur  d'Ess^), 
ii.  12,  13. 

Montereul  (Montreuil),  iii.  164-175, 
iSo,   182,   1S6-188,    190. 

Montgomerie,  Lorges  de,  i.  482,  483. 

Montgomery  (Provost  of  Glasgow),  iv. 
110. 

Montgomery,  Abp.  of  Glasgow,  ii. 
283- 284;  300,  31S. 

Montgomery,  Col.,  iii.  197,  246,  249. 

Montgomery,  Lord  (1425),  i.  302. 

Montgomery  (Earl  of  Elgintoun),  ii. 
142. 

Montgomery,  Francis,  iv.  no. 

Montgomery,  Sir  James.  •S'^*'  Skel- 
moriey. 

Montgrenan,  Ross  of,  i.  362. 


INDEX. 


599 


Montrose,   1st  Duke  of,  iv.    io6,    117, 

134- 

Montrose,  2nd  Duke  of,  iv.  472. 

Montrose,  1st  Earl  of,  i.  350. 

Montrose,  2n(l  Earl  of,  ii.  142. 

Montrose,   3rd   Earl  of,   ii.    260,   263, 
292,  293,  316,  345,  367,   380,  492. 

Montrose,    1st  Marquess  of,  family  and 
early    career    of,    iii.    49 ;    protests 
against   the    Liturgy,    30;    in   Aber- 
deen, 38  ;  difficulties  of,  43  ;  Leslie 
adjutant-general  to,  53  ;  forces  of,  54  ; 
blue  colours  of,  55  ;  negotiations  with 
Huntly,  ib.  ;   disputable  conduct   as 
to  seizure  of  Huntly,  56-57,  75  ;  at 
Bridge  of  Dee,  58  ;   refuses  to  sack 
Aberdeen,   59 ;    lenity  of,    censured, 
58,   77  ;   meets  Charles  at  Berwick, 
67  and  note ;  change  of  sides  by,  68, 
83  ;   suspect,   70 ;   opposes  the  con- 
vention,   74 ;    secures    surrender    of 
Airlie  Castle,  75  ;  thwarts  Argyll,  77, 
85 ;  crosses  Tweed,  78  ;  letter  to  the 
king,  81  ;  treatise  on  sovereignty,  86  ; 
accuses  Argyll,  87,  91  ;  imprisoned, 
89-90;    in   danger,   91-92;    The  In- 
cident, 96-100  ;  released,  98  ;  advice 
disregarded  by  queen  and  king,  106, 
no;  approached  by  Argyll's  faction, 
106-107  ;  jealousy  against,  111-112, 
116  ;  joins  Newcastle,  113  ;  failed  by 
Antrim  and  foiled  by  Callendar,  114; 
takes  Morpeth,   116;   after  Marston 
Moor,  119;  joins  Colkitto,  120-121  ; 
Tippermuir,  122-123  >  price  on  head 
of,  123;  battle  of  Aberdeen,  126,  128 
and  note;   baffles  Argyll,    128-129; 
comes  up  with  Argyll,    132  ;   Inver- 
lochie,    133 ;   excommunicated,   135, 
202;    takes   Dundee,    137-138;    re- 
markable  retreat,    138 -140;    Aulil- 
earn,   141-144;  exchanges  prisoners, 
145  ;  outmanoeuvres  Baillie,  ib.  ;  Al- 
ford    fight,    147-149;     Kilsyth,    153- 
156 ;    saves  Glasgow  from    plunder, 
156;    played  false  by  Border  lords, 
ib.,    159;     Philiphaiigh,     157-159; 
death  of  his  wife,  161  ;  Charles's  ap- 
preciation  of,    166,    176 ;    Lothian's 
demands  as  to,   175;  avoids  "safe" 
conduct  and  escapes,  176  ;  appointed 
Field-Marshal   by  the   Kaiser,    199  ; 
learns    the    king's  death,    206;    ap- 
pointed Captain  Cieneral  by  Charles 
II.,  ib.  ;  attempts  at  ruin  of,  208-209; 
mission    to    European    courts,    210 ; 
Charles  II. 's  assurances  to,  ib.,  211, 
222,  224  ;   sent  by  Charles  to  Scot- 
land, 211  ;  receives  the  Garter,  212, 
222  ;    Charles's    letters    to    Fleming 
regarding,    224-226  ;    movements   in 


Scotland,  213;  Carbisdale,  214; 
handed  over  by  .\s>)'nt,  182,  216, 
218;  baited  and  insulted,  218-219; 
executed,  220  ;  limbs  exposed,  i.  196, 
iii.  221,  231  ;  funeral  and  tomb  of, 
293-294  ;  estimate  of,  45,  48-49,  117; 
characteristics  of,  134  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  ^2  note,  66,  71,  102,  108, 
168,    170,    179,    180,    229;    iv.    106, 

403- 

Montrose,  2nd  Marquess  of,  iii.  335, 
368-369. 

Monymusk,  Grant  of,  iv.  419. 

Morar,  Macdonald  of,  iv.  458,  469 ; 
cited,  494,  500. 

Moray — 

Forfeitures  in,  result  of,  i.  136. 
Kenneth  dynasty's  relations  with,  i. 

42. 
Norse  possession  of,  i.  43. 

Moray,  Earl  of  (Thos.  Randolph), 
with  Bruce,  i.  205 ;  becomes  Ed- 
ward's man,  206  ;  takes  Edinburgh, 
205,  216  ;  reconciled  to  Bruce,  213, 
239  ;  at  Bannockburn,  218-220,  222  ; 
appointed  guardian,  226,  228 ;  gains 
Berwick,  228  ;  mission  to  the  Pope, 
232  ;  lands  accruing  to,  235,  241  ; 
regency  and  death  of,  243,  269 ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  229,  231,  233, 
241. 

Moray,  Earl  of  (elder  son  of  Randolph) 
(1332),  i.  244-245. 

Moray,  Earl  of  (John,  second  son  of 
Randolph),  i.  246,  248-252,  256-258. 

Moray,  Earl  of  (brother  of  James  V.), 
i.  417,  418,  460,  465;  iv.  410. 

Moray,  ist  Earl  of  (Lord  James  Stuart), 
illegitimacy  of,  i.  438,  440 ;  Com- 
missioner for  the  French  marriage, 
ii.  38 ;  suspected  poisoning  of,  at 
Dieppe,  43  ;  hatred  of  Queen  Regent, 
52 ;  negotiates  with  Protestants  in 
Perth,  52-53  ;  suspected  of  aiming  at 
the  Crown,  57  ;  repulses  the  French, 
63  ;  legitimated,  64  ;  conference  with 
Queen  Regent,  66  ;  embassy  to  Mary, 
95-96  ;  ^Iary  warned  against,  97  ; 
interview  with  Throckmorton,  97-9S, 
102-103  ;  urges  Elizabeth  to  acknow- 
ledge Mary  as  heir,  99 ;  tolerant 
policy,  108-109;  ks  politiques  led 
by,  no;  made  Earl  of  Alar,  ib.  ; 
marriage,  ib.  ;  chastises  Borderers, 
115-116,  195;  made  Earl  of  Moray, 
117;  relations  with  Mary,  ng,  120, 
138,  149,  151,  161  ;  estrangement 
from  Knox,  128,  133  ;  resents  Eliza- 
beth's interference,  130  ;  on  Lennox's 
home-coming,  134  ;  attitude  to  Darn- 
ley,    138-141,    146,   164-165;   enters 


6oo 


INDEX. 


Edinburgh  with  6000  armed  men, 
140 ;  alleges  assassination  plot  against 
himself,  142-143  ;  plot  against  Lennox 
and  Darnley,  142- 144  ;  at  Lochleven, 
143-144;  refuses  to  appear  before  Mary 
and  is  outlawed,  145  ;  flies  from 
Edinburgh,  150  ;  states  reason  for 
rebelling,  151-153  ;  interview  with 
Elizabeth,  1 52- 1 54  ;  sues  for  pardon, 
155  ;  privy  to  Riccio  plot,  159,  161  ; 
pardoned,  163 ;  feud  with  Bothwell 
reconciled,  164 ;  Craigmillar  confer- 
ence, 171  ;  band  against  Darnley, 
232 ;  in  Fifeshire  during  Darnley's 
murder,  175  ;  probable  foreknowledge 
of  Darnley's  murder,  180;  makes  a 
will  appointing  Mary  guardian  of  his 
daughter,  182  ;  interview  with  Mary, 
192-194  ;  appointed  Regent,  193  ; 
vigorous  rule,  194  ;  intolerant  policy, 
195 ;  Langside,  196-197 ;  professes 
unwillingness  to  accuse  Mary,  199  ; 
holds  a  Parliament,  200 ;  insists  on 
the  regency,  202,  203  ;  produces  his 
charges,  205  ;  confirmed  in  the  re- 
gency, 209  ;  produces  the  "Articles," 
207  ;  the  Casket  Letters,  564,  565- 
567  ;  intrigues  with  Norfolk,  215-216  ; 
returns  to  Scotland,  216  ;  sends  Cecil 
Mary's  letter  to  Mar,  ib. ;  executes 
coup  d'etat,  217  ;  deserts  Norfolk, 
215,  216,  219,  223  ;  at  Perth  assembly, 
220  ;  breaks  wiih  Lethington,  223  ; 
tries  to  get  possession  of  Mary,  225  ; 
murder  of,  ib.  ;  funeral  of,  227 ; 
estimates  of,  225,  226  ;  characteristics 
of,  226  ;  ecclesiastical  policy  of,  iv. 
158  ;  convenient  cases  of  alibi,  ii. 
161,  175,  182-1S3  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 16,  30,  34,  37,  56-58,  61,  71, 

137,  170,  173- 
Moray,  2nd  Earl  of,  Huntly's  feud  with, 

ii-  34«.  351.  355-356  ;  murdered,  357. 
Moray,  3rd  Earl  of,  ii.  379,  380,  475. 
Moray,  5th  Earl  of,  iii.  408-409. 
Moray,  Sir  Andrew.     See  Murray. 
Morel  of  Bamborough,  i.  95. 
Moreville,  de,  i.  136. 
Morgan,  Capt.,  iv.  337-338. 
Morgan,  Col.  (Monk's  oflicer),  iii.  271, 

273- 

Morinaors,  i.  151. 

Morton,  4th  Earl  of  (Regent),  band  of, 
•'•  37i  38  ;  signs  league  with  England, 
63 ;  wavers,  64  ;  joins  Protestants, 
65  ;  embassy  to  Elizabeth,  94  ;  mur- 
der of  Riccio,  161  ;  ])ardoncd,  173  i 
implicated  in  Darnley's  murder,  180, 
188,  259,  272  ;  signs  Ainslie's  band, 
183  ;  Casket  Letters,  190,  226,  234, 
563-564 ;   in  danger  of  exposure  by 


Mary,  195,  199,  232 ;  advocates  ex- 
treme measures,  205  ;  hatred  of  Leth- 
ington, 227  ;  afraid  of  Mary,  232, 
234 ;  relations  with  Archibald 
Douglas,  238  ;  imprisons  him,  241  ; 
intrigue  for  Mary's  execution,  242- 
243;  appointed  Regent,  246  ;  lies  to 
Knox,  ib.  ;  poisons  wells  near  Edin- 
burgh Castle,  248 ;  hangs  a  gold- 
smith, 250 ;  insolence  towards 
preachers,  252,  283  ;  the  Reidswire, 
257-25S ;  Hamilton-Angus  marriage 
project,  258-259  ;  inclines  to  Mary, 
259;  resigns  regency,  261;  joins 
Mar,  ib.  ;  takes  Hamilton  Castle, 
263 ;  placard  against,  265  ;  betrayed 
by  Archibald  Douglas,  268 ;  arrested, 
269,  274  ;  trial,  271  ;  inculpates 
Archibald  Douglas  in  Darnley's  mur- 
der, 272,  321  ;  execution  of,  272 ; 
estimate  of,  246 ;  avarice  of,  240 ; 
cruelties  of,  259 ;  alleged  torturing 
and  hanging  of  a  preacher  by,  277  ; 
policy  of,  246  ;  policy  towards  the 
kirk,  ib.,  252-254,  276,  277;  provi- 
sion for  bastards  of,  255-256  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  i.  472  ;  ii.  12,  34, 
138,  151,  154,  157-159,  171,  192, 
207,  219,  223,  224,  228,  229,  231. 
Morton,  Earl  of  (6th  Lord  Maxwell), 
sets  up  the  Mass,  ii.  318;  intrigue 
with  Guise,  320,  322,  334 ;  intrigue 
with  Spain,  335,  338,  524;  captured 
by  James,  341  ;  slain,  382-383,  524  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  286,  313,  314, 

347,  367- 
Morton,  8th  Earl  of  (Sir  Wm.  Douglas 
of  Lochleven),  in  conspiracy  against 
Riccio,  ii.  160  ;  Mary  Stuart  in  the 
charge  of,  189 ;  sells  Northumber- 
land, 242 ;  seeks  vengeance  on 
Haniiltons,  258;  obtains  Earldom 
of  Morton,  341  ;  succeeds  to  office, 
358  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  155,  375, 

376,  379.  393- 
Morton,   9th  Earl  of,  ii.   512;    iii.   91, 

114. 
Morton,  nth  Earl  of  (1673),  iii.  326. 
Morton,  13th  Earl  of,  iv.  no,  1S4. 
Morton,  i6th  Earl  of,  iv.  522. 
Morton,  Father,  ii.  395. 
Motes,  i.  65-66,  86. 
Mounlforth,  Peris  de,  i.  240. 
Mowbray  (1332),  i.  246. 
Mowbray  (1384),  i.  277,  278. 
Mowbray,  Mr,  iii.  199. 
Mowbray,  Alexander  de,  i.  249,  250. 
Mnwliray,  Francis,  ii.  472. 
Mowbray,  Philip  de,  i.  210,   219,   223, 

225-226. 
Mowbray,  Robert  de,  i.  95. 


INDEX. 


6oi 


Mowbray,  Roger  de,  i.  230. 

Moy,  rout  of,  iv.  502. 

Moyle,  Gen.,  iv.  430-431,  433. 

Moysie  (diarist)  cited,  ii.  390. 

MSS.  of  early  Cells,  i.  76. 

Murder,  distinction  of,  from  open  man- 
slaying,  i.  147-148. 

Murdoch  and  Morland  Simpson  cited, 
iii.  158  note. 

Muiravonside,  Macleod  of,  iv.  437,  471. 

Mull,  Macleans  of,  i.  291. 

Munro,  Dr,  cited,  i.  61,  62. 

Munroe,  Col.,  iii.  60,  62,  66,  71,  76. 

Murray,  Capt.,  ii.  553. 

Murray,  Countess  of  (1715),  iv.  221. 

Murray,  Lord  (1678-89),  iii.  333;  iv. 
14-16. 

Murray,  Regent,     See  Moray. 

Murray,  Sir  Andrew,  i.  182,  185,  198, 
246,  496 ;  property  accruing  to,  235  ; 
captures  Beaumont,  250 ;  rescues 
Bruce's  sister,  252 ;  recognised  as 
Regent  (1335),  253 ;  death  of,  254. 

Murray,  Lord  Charles,  iv.  205,  209. 

Murray,  Lord  George,  at  Glenshiel,  iv. 
272-273;  distrusted,  446,  501,  505- 
507  ;  (General  in  the  '45,  457-45^' ; 
relations  with  Cope,  461,  463  ;  joins 
Charles,  463 ;  dishonourable  posi- 
tion, 463  -  464  ;  Prestonpans,  468- 
469 ;  thwarts  Charles's  plan,  474  ; 
resigns  his  commission,  475  ;  pacified, 
476  ;  marches  south,  477  ;  meditates 
retreat,  478 ;  successful  feint  against 
Cumberland,  479 ;  advises  retreat, 
480;  conduct  on  the  retreat,  481, 
484  ;  Clifton  fight,  485-486  ;  march 
continued  to  Moffat,  490  ;  on  AthoU 
desertions,  492  ;  Falkirk  fight,  493- 
494  ;  demands  advisory  council,  498; 
advises  farther  retreat,  497-499  ;  on 
the  disorderly  flight,  500-501  ;  advises 
despatch  of  supplies  to  the  hills,  503  ; 
energetic  operations,  504  -  505  ;  at- 
tempts surprise  at  Culloden,  506-507 ; 
perverse  treatment  of  Macdonalds, 
508;  the  battle,  509-513,  517,  523- 
525  ;  letter  to  Charles  resigning  com- 
mand, 518;  otherwise  mentioned, 
220,  221,  229,  243,  363,  444,  491, 
520. 

Murray,    Sir   Gideon,    of  Elibank,    ii. 

493.   523; 

Murray,  Sir  James  (Abercairney),  iv. 
94-95  a«(/  note. 

Murray,  James,  Earl  of  Dunbar,  .S"^^ 
Dunbar. 

Murray,  Mungo,  iii.  102. 

Murray,  Robert  (preacher),  iii.  49,  87. 

Murray,  Sir  Robert,  scheme  of,  for  re- 
ligious   compromise,    iii.    314-315; 


death  of,  326;  cited,  267,  313,  314 
and  note,  322  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
165,  168,  169,  170  note,  172,  229, 
301, 

Murray,  Will,     See  Dysart. 

Murray,  William  (brother  of  TuUi- 
bardine,   1645),  iii.   135,   162. 

Murray  of  Broughton,  Tullibardine,  ^c. 
See  Broughton,  Tullibardine,  &c. 

Musgrave  (English  Cavalier),  iii.  196  ; 
cited,  190  note. 

Musgrave,  Sir  Wm.,  cited,  i.  455. 

Mynyd,  Agned,  i.  29,  32, 

Nairn,  Rev, ,  iv.  305. 

Nairn,  Robert,  cited,  iv.  513. 

Nairne  (preacher),  iii.  323. 

Nairne,  2nd  Lord,  iv.  182,  190,  205, 
226,  239, 

Nairne,  3rd  Lord,  iv.  205,  239,  447. 

Nairne,  Slajor,  iv.  205,  210. 

Namur,  Count  of,  i,  252. 

Napier,  Lord,  of  Merchistoun,  Mon- 
trose the  ward  of,  iii.  49 ;  imprison- 
ment and  trial  of,  89-91  ;  .severities 
against,  145 ;  released,  156  ;  with 
Montrose,  159;  death  of,  161  ;  cited, 
33 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  72,  74, 
114. 

Napier,  2nd  Lord,  with  Montrose,  iii. 
141,  149,  159;  in  Holland,  206, 
211  ;  banished,  230;  forfeited,  272; 
otherwise  mentioned,  114,  294. 

Napier,  Alexander,  i.  322,  326. 

Napier,  John,  iii.  145,  156. 

Napier,  Mark,  cited,  ii.  571  ;  iii.  35, 
49,  53  note,  57  note,  58,  74,  86,  in, 
176  7iote,  383,  396. 

Napier  and  Ettrick,  Lord,  i,  453 ; 
cited,  386, 

Nativi,  i.  137,  140, 

Nau,  Claude,  sent  with  Mary's  letters 
to  James,  ii.  264  ;  dislike  of,  305  ; 
cited,  165,  166,  177,  183,  188-189, 
196,  218,  231,  297-298;  otherwise 
mentioned,  311,  312. 

Navy — 

Bruce's  care  for,  i.  234, 
James  IV.'s  care  for,  i,  363 

Nectan,  King,  i.  35-36,  44. 

Need-fire,  i.  1 54- 1 55. 

Neilson,  George,  cited,  i.  66,  501,  502, 

Nether  Pollock,  Maxwell  of,  iii.  306. 

Neville  (Ambassador)  cited,  ii.  445. 

Neville,  Abp.  of  York,  i.  341,  357. 

Neville,  Ralph,  i.  249. 

Neville's  Cross,  i.  257-258. 

Nevoy  (Neave),  John  (preacher),  iii. 
i8l,  184  and  note,  247,  272,  302. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne — 

Balliol's  homage  at,  i.  250. 


6o2 


INDEX. 


Burgh  laws  of,  i.  143, 

Founding  of,  i.  93. 

Surrender  of,  to  the  Scots  (1640),  iii. 
78. 
Newcastle,  Duke  of,  iv.  484. 
Newcastle,    Marquis   of,    iii.    1 12- 1 14, 

116. 
Newcastle,  Treaty  of,  i.  120. 
Newton,  Dunbar  of,  iv,  312-313. 
Newton,  Nesbit  of,  ii.  337. 
Newton,  Adam,  i,  227. 
Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  iv.  295,  308. 
Nicholas,  Secy.,  iii.  167,  172,  211,  221, 

230  ;  cited,  251  note,  266,  270. 
Nicholson   (diplomatist)  cited,   ii.    436, 

438,  441,  444-450.  475.  527.  572- 
Nicholl    (diarist)   cited,    iii.    231,    232, 

252,   254,   255,   260,  272,  275,  276, 

278,  279,  295. 
Nisbet,  Lord  Advocate,  iii,  331. 
Nisbet,  Sergeant,  cited,  iii.  355  note. 
Nisbet,  Sir  Philip,  iii.  161, 
Nisbet,  Sir  Thos,,  ii.  543. 
Nisbet  of  Dirleton,  iv.  446,  452. 
Nithsdale,   Earl  of  (1627-43),   "i-    IS> 

16,  108,  112. 
Nithsdale,  Earl  of  (1707-15),  iv.    147, 

182,  195,  210,  226,  238-239. 
Nobles — 

Dispossessed  by  Bruce,  claims  of,  i. 

245- 
Influence  of,  i.  162-163. 

Plight  of,  during  Cromwell's  occupa- 
tion, iii.  261,  263,  267. 
Rebellion    the    common   interest  of, 

ii.  154. 
Selfish  scheming  of,  i.  433. 
Snobbishness  of,  i.  343. 
Sycophancy  of  (1708),  iv.  151. 
Venality  of,  i.  401. 
Norfolk,  3rd  Duke  of,  i.  405,  406,  447, 

,451.452- 

Norfolk,  4th  Duke  of,  appointed  Com- 
missioner for  Mary's  case,  ii.  20I  ; 
shown  Casket  Letters,  189,  202  ;  pro- 
ject for  marriage  with  Mary,  202-203, 
215,  217-219;  project  discovered  by 
Elizabeth,  222  ;  project  played  with 
by  Cecil,  232 ;  Moray's  intrigue  with, 
215-216  ;  deserted  by  Moray,  215, 
2i6,  219,  223;  released,  232;  be- 
trayed by  Lesley,  239 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  63,  66. 

Norham  — 
Castle,  i.  377. 

Church  at,  anecdote  of,  i.  157. 
Edward  I.  at,  i.  168-169,  171. 

Nc)rmans — ■ 

Arcliilccture  of,  i.  158. 
Battle  of  the  Standard,   at,   i.    105- 
107. 


Castles  of,  i.  III. 

David  I.'s  attachment  to,  i.  109, 

Influence  of  nobles,  i.  162-163. 

Motes  erected  by,  i.  66. 

Northumbria  ravaged  by,  i.  91, 
Norrie,  Dr,  iv.  331-332. 
North,  Lord,  iv,  338,  339. 
North   Berwick,    Hume  of  (Sir   Alex- 
ander Home),  ii.  372,  418,  420,  422. 
Northampton,  Treaty  of,  i,  233,  241, 
Northesk,  4th  Earl  of,  iv,  152. 
Northmen — 

Caithness  under  Harald,  i.  1 16- 1 17. 

Characteristics  of,  i.  60,  75. 

Decorative  art  among,  i.  69. 

Duncan's  relations  with,  i.  53-54. 

Kenneth  dynasty's  relations  with,  i. 
41-42. 

Northumbrian  kingdom  of,  i.  44-47. 

Possessions  of  (863-877),  i.  42-43. 

Ravages  of,  in  north  Scotland,  i.  36, 

37.51. 
Western   Isles    in    possession    of,    i. 
99;  ceded  by,  123. 
Northumberland — 

Scottish  claim  to,  i.  102,  104,  116- 
117,  128;  conceded  to  Prince 
Henry,  107  ;  resigned  by  Malcolm, 
no;  commuted  with  Alexander 
II.,  120. 
William  the  Lion's  invasion  of,  i. 
I11-112,  128-129. 
Northumberland,    Duke    of    (Earl    of 

Warwick),  ii.  9,  14,  26. 
Northumberland,  1st  Earl  of,  i.  288. 
Northumberland,  6th  Earl  of,  i.   414, 

415,418. 
Northumberland,  7th  Earl  of,   ii.   224, 

242. 
Northumbria — 

Land  tenure  in,  i.  82. 

Malcolm  II. 's  invasions  of,  i.  52, 

Malcolm  Canmore's  ravages  in,  i,  90, 

91.  93- 
Norse  kingdom  of,  i.  44-47. 
William  the  Conqueror's  ravaging  of, 
i.  91. 
Norton  (publisher),  ii.  470. 
Notaries,  law  as  to  (15S7),  ii,  337. 
Nottingham,  Earl  of  (1702),  iv.  84,  loq 

^39- 
Nova  Scotia  baronets,  iii.  9,  li. 

Gates,  Titus,  iii.  336,  348. 

O'Brien  (Lord  Lismore),  iv.  425,  444, 

473- 
Ochiltree,  House  of,  ii.  505,  541. 
Ochiltree,    Lord    (1566),   ii.    128,    158- 

"59.  197- 
Ochiltree,    Lord   (1591).   »>•    ZS^,    357. 

371-373.  376. 


INDEX. 


603 


Ochiltree,  Lord  (1608),  ii.  529. 

(tchiltree,  Edie,  i.  301. 

Octavians,  ii.   401-403,  417-418,    431  ; 

the  New  (1611),  504. 
O'Donnell  (chief  of  Tyrconnell),  i.  366. 
O'Gahan,  Capt.,  iii.  122  note,  129,  133. 
Ogam  inscriptions,   i.    12,    15,    19,  25, 

77- 
Ogilvie,  Capt.   (Jacobite  spy),  iv.   132, 

^43,  180,  251  ;  cited,  145- H7- 
Ogilvie,    Father,   ii.   507-509;    iii.    17, 

35- 
Ogilvie,  Lord,  iii.  119,  123. 
Ogilvie,  Lord  (171 5),  iv.  182. 
Ogilvy,    Capt.    (1652),    saves    Regalia 

from  the  English,  iii.  261-262. 
Ogilvy,  Lady,  iii.  76  and  note. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (1445),  i.    325. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (1543),   i.  471.  474,  475, 

478-479,  491. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (1578),  ii.  260,  280. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (1 560),  ii.  64. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (1644),  iii.  106,  I12,  II4, 

135,  161-163,  256. 
Ogilvy,  Lord  (i745).  iv.  463,  472. 
Ogilvy,  Sir  David,  iii.  246. 
Ogilvy,  Sir  James,  iv.  62. 
Ogilvy,  Marioun  (Mariotte),  i.  445,  459, 

489. 
Ogilvy,  SirThos.,  iii.  133. 
Ogilvy,  Walter,  i.  284,  301. 
Ogilvy  of  Boyne,  iv.  122,  146,  196. 
Ogilvy  of  Pourie.     See  Pourie. 
Ogle,  Robert,  i.  336. 
Oglethorpe,  Gen.,  iv.  484. 
Oglethorpe,  Anne,  iv.  250. 
Oglethorpe,  Fanny,  iv.   168,  179,   234, 

237- 
Oig,  Angus,  ii.  533,  534. 
Oig,  Ranald,  ii.  533. 
Olaf  (950),  i.  46,  49,  58. 
Olaf,  King  of  Man,  i.  no. 
Oldmixon  cited,  iii.  76  note. 
Olifard  (Oliphant),  David,  i.  107. 
Oliphant,  Robert,  ii.  460,  463. 
Oliphant,  Sir  Wm.,  i.    189,    193,  215- 

216,  225,  239, 
Oliver,  Capt.  Pasco,  cited,  iv.  104. 
Oman,  Professor,  cited,  i.  239,  269. 
Orange,    Prince  of  (1584),  murder  of, 

ii.  308. 
Orange,  Prince  of  (1649),  iii.  201,  206- 

207,  229. 
Orange,  Prince  of  (William  III.)     See 

William  III. 
Ordeal,  i.  149,  161. 

Ordericus  Vitalis  cited,  i.  91,  93,   126. 
Oriel  College,  Oxford,  i.  223. 
Orkney — 

Both  well  in,  ii.  190. 

Danish  law  in,  ii.  537-538. 


Maid  of  Norway  in,  i.  166,  197. 
Scottish  acquisition  of,  i.  340. 

Orkney,  Earl  of  (1461),  i.  335. 

Orkney,  Earl  of  (son  of  Lord  Robert 
Stuart)  (1608),  ii.  537-53«.  553- 

Orkney,  Earl  of  (1714),  iv.  170. 

Ormidale,  Campbell  of,  iv,  263. 

Ormiston,  Laird  of  (1545),  i.  487. 

Ormiston,  Cockburn  of,  robbed  by  Both- 
well,  ii.  61,  108,  III;  conspiracy 
a^gainst  Riccio,  160  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 8,  19,  32. 

Ormiston,  Cockburn  of,  iv.  80,  83,  lOl, 
103,  no,  164,  183,  392. 

Ormiston,  John  Cockburn  of  (1727), 
iv,  420, 

Ormistoun,  Black  Laird  of  (1567),  ii, 
171,  175,  180,  200,  224. 

Ormond,  ist  Duke  of,  iii.  231,  234. 

Ormond,  2nd  Duke  of,  appointed  Cap- 
tain-General, iv,  174  ;  fiasco  of  the 
'15,  176-179;  flight  to  France,  179, 
180;  Maclean's  treachery  against, 
187 ;  the  Spanish  Expedition,  263- 
267,  269-271  ;  plot  of  1722,  338-339  ; 
at  Avignf)n,  444 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 175,  183,  223,  225,  233-237, 
249,  260,  280. 

Ormond,  Earl  of  (1455),  i.  330-33I- 

Ormond,  Lord  (1545).  i-  484,  509- 

Ormsby,  Justiciary,  i.  179,  181. 

Oswald,  King,  i.  32,  33. 

Oswiu,  King,  i.  33. 

Otterburn,  Adam,  ii.  3. 

Otterburn,  Alexander  of,  i.  302. 

Otterburn,  battle  of,  i.  282-283,  297. 

O'Toole,  Capt.,  iv,  275-277. 

Overton,  Col.,  iii,  253,  264. 

Oxburgh,  Col.,  iv.  196,  210,  240. 

Oxenham,  Richard,  i.  327. 

Oxford,  Earl  of  (Robert  Harley),  ap- 
pointed Union  Commissioner,  iv.  84; 
Scottish  policy,  153  ;  Greenshields' 
case,  154-155  ;  receives  Presbyterian 
deputation,  156 ;  attitude  towards 
James's  restoration,  165  ;  enmity  with 
Bolingbroke,  if).,  167,  169;  dis- 
missed from  oflice,  170  ;  hold  over 
Marlborough,  171  ;  Jacobite  intrigues 
of,  250-251,  259,  266 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  92,  117,  121,  131,  132, 
149,   152,   157,    163,   339. 

Paget,  John,  cited,  iv.  52. 

Painting,  iv.  415. 

Palgrave,  Sir  F.,  cited,  i.  237. 

Palladius,  i.  25-26. 

Panama  colony  scheme,  iv.   59-61,  65- 

72,  73-77.  n6-n7,  132-133. 
Panmure,  Earl  of  (1707-24),  iv.  137,  190, 

191,  y^^,  332. 


6o4 


INDEX. 


Panter,  Bp.  of  Ross,  i.  424  ;  ii.  3,  44. 
Papacy — 

Great  Schism,  i.  290. 

Pecaniary  claims  of,  i.  427. 

Scottish  kings'  relations  with,  i.  1 00, 

114;  James  I.'s,  309-310;  James 

III.'s,  347  ;  James  IV. 's,  381,  386. 

Paris  (servant  of  Bothwell),  ii.  175,  177, 

203-204,  220-221. 
Parkhead,  Douglas  of  (1529),  i.  506. 
Parkhead,    James    Douglas   of,    Arran 
murdered  by,  ii.  301,  316,  423  ;  death 
of,  541. 
Parliament — 

Bishops  in  (1600),  ii.  465-466. 

Club,  the   (1689),  iv.   2,    6,  28,   29  ; 

revived  (1700),  73. 
Constitution  and  character  of,  i.  146  ; 

of  Convention  of  1560,  ii.  74-75. 
David  I  I.'s  reign,  achievements  of, 

i.  267. 
Delays  and  tedium  of,  iv.  i,  3,  5,  11, 

76,  89,  99. 
Development  of  (1407- 1703),  iv.   85- 

James  VI. 's  pretensions  as  to,  ii.  447. 
Lords  of  the  Articles.  See  that  title. 
Opposition    party,    non-existence    or 

non-attendance  of,  i.  306,  353  ;   ii. 

299  ;  iii.  22,  198,  422. 
Parties  in  (1703),  ii.  88-89;  (1706), 

1 1 7- 1 19. 
Payment  of  members  enjoined,  i.  306. 
Precedence  in,  quarrelling  as  to,  de- 
nounced, ii.  337. 
Rapidity  of  work  in,  i.  304. 
Red  Parliament  (1606),  ii.  488-489; 

iii.  13. 
Representative  principle,  attempts  at, 

i.  306. 
Riding  of  (1703),  iv,  89. 
Sijuadrone  Volante — 

Argyll  at  feud  with  (1716),  iv.  232, 
241-243;  (1727),  355-357- 

Constitution  of,  iv.  105-106. 

Kersland's  dealings  with,  iv.    130, 
142. 

Theology  in,  iv.  296. 
"  Tacking,"  iv.  99. 
Tolbooth,  in  the,  ii.  512. 
Whigamore  (1649),  iii.   197-198;  iv. 

'59- 

Parliament,  English,  thirty  .Scottish  rep- 
resentatives for  (1652),  iii.  263,  272. 

Parliamenlaty  representation  of  .Scot- 
land under  the  Union,  iv.  116; 
Representative  Peers  ( 1 721),  355-356. 

Parliaments — 

Aberbrolhock,  i.  230. 
Cambuskennelh,  i.  2?2. 
Dairsie  Castle  (1335),  i.  252. 


Dunfermline  (1335-36),  i.  253. 

Edinburgh  (1333-34),  i-  249. 

St  Andrews,  i.  214. 

Scone  (1357},  i.  260 ;  (1364),  261-262, 
271-272  ;   (1366-68),  265. 
Parma,  Duke  of,  ii.  334-335. 
Parr  (Border  official),  cited,  i.  466. 
Parsons  (Persons),  Father,  ii.  280-282, 

301,  334,  1^2,,  435. 

Paterson,  Bp.,  iii.  411. 

Paterson,  Hugh,  iv.  256. 

Paterson,  Sir  Hugh,  iv.  200,  257,  265, 
465,  491. 

Paterson,  William,  iv.  60-67,  69,   114, 
123. 

"  Patois  of  Canaan,"  i.  436,  447  ;  iii. 
246. 

Patricius,  St,  i.  22-23,  26-27,  37,  38. 

Patriotism — 

Birth  of,  i.  212,  236. 
Eclipse  of,  i.  242,  251. 

Patten,  Judge-Martial,  ii.  10. 

Patten,    Rev.    Robert,    iv.    196,    204 ; 
cited,  195,  199,  204,  208,  209,  220. 

Paul  III.,  Pope,  i.  439. 

Paul,  Rev.  Wm.,  iv.  240. 

Paulet,  Amyas,  ii.  312,  319,  320,  327. 

Paulinus,  i.  32. 

Payne,  Nevile,  iv.  28,  32, 

Peartree,  Jock  Graham  of,  ii.  310-31 1. 

Pechts,  i.  II. 

Peden,  Rev. (preacher),  on  curates, 

iii.  304 ;  deserts  Dairy  insurgents, 
308  ;  prophesies  Brown's  death,  392; 
death  of,  410;  otherwise  mentioned, 
340,  401  ;  iv.  46. 

Peirson,  Rev.  ,  iii.  382,  383,  390, 

396. 

Pembroke,  Earl  of  (Aymer  de  Valence), 
i.  205,  207,  210,  211,  214. 

Pembroke,  Earl  of  (Wm.   Herbert),  ii. 
512. 

Penda,  King,  i.  33. 

Penicuik,    Sir  John  Clerk  of,   iv.    no, 
114;  cited,  131-132. 

Penlland    Rising    (1666),    iii.    307-309, 
312-313  and  note. 

Percy,  Earl  of  Northumberland  (1378), 
i-  275-277,  297. 

Percy,  Sir  Harry,  cited,  ii.  38. 

Percy,   Henry,  over   the   Border   with 
Clifford,  i.    181-1S2,    205;   at  Turn- 
berry,   209;    forfeited  lands  of,   234, 
235  ;  at  Neville's  Cross,   257  ;  War- 
den of  East  Marches,  281-282  ;  men- 
tioned, 249. 
Percy,  Hotspur,  i.  288,  293. 
Percy,  Ralph,  i.  282. 
Perth  — 

Balliol's  seizure  of  (1332),  i.  245. 
Bruce's  capture  of,  i.  215-216,  239. 


INDEX. 


605 


Protestant  excesses  at  (1559),  ii.  4^- 

5'.  56. 
I'rovosiship  of,  i.  144. 
Kesby  burned  at,  i.  290. 
Surrender  of,  to  the  Steward  (1339), 
i.  254,  270. 

Perth,  Pacification  of,  ii.  248,  263. 

Perth,  1st  Duke  of  (4th  Karl),  joins 
Hamilton's  party,  iii.  334 ;  Chan- 
cellor, 376 ;  taken  and  imprisoned, 
417  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  407,  409, 
419 ;  iv.  148,  169. 

Perth,  3rd  Duke  of,  escapes  Inverawe, 
iv.  459-460 ;  at  Prestonpans,  469 ; 
relations  with  Lord  George  Murray, 
476  ;  death  of,  417,  518  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  264,  269,  436,  441, 
443,  446,  451,  452,  458,  463,  474, 
475,  483,  485,  505,  506,  510. 

Peter  the  Great,  Czar,  iv.  257,  258, 
260,  262,   274. 

Phesdo,  Lord  (Falconer),  iv.  98. 

Philip  of  France,  i.  503. 

Philip  IV.,  King  of  Spain  {see  also 
Spain),  Mary's  negotiations  with,  ii, 
150,  156 ;  crushes  Jesuit  plot  for 
Mary,  282;  assists  James  VI.,  304; 
made  Mary's  heir,  319,  320;  rela- 
tions with  Scottish  Catholics,  334- 
335  '■<  James's  alleged  intrigue  with 
(1596),  403;  otherwise  mentioned, 
24.  35.  64,  125,  337. 

Philip,  James,  iv.  9;  cited,  8,  11,  24. 

Philiphaugh,  iii.  127,  128  ttote. 

Philiphaugh,  Murray  of,  iii.  377  ;  iv. 
74,  76,    lOI. 

Philippson  (decipherer),  attitude  of,  to 
Moray,  ii.  193;  cited,  72,  IOI-103, 
179. 

Philotus  quoted,  ii.  556-558. 

Piccolomini    (Pope   Pius   IL)  cited,   i. 
.315-316. 

Pictland,  seven  provinces  of,  i.  28,  40- 
41. 

Picts — 

Arms  and  clothing  of,  i.  60. 
Family  system  of,  i.  12-13. 
Galloway,  at  Battle  of  the  Standard, 

i.  105-106. 
Language  of,  i.  11,  14-15,  493. 
Legends  as  to,  i.  11. 
Life  of,  details  as  to,  i.  72-75. 
Matriarchy  among,  i.  4-5,  28-29,  S^' 
Name,  origin  of,  i.  14. 
Northern    and    Southern,    feuds    be- 
tween, i.  43,  49. 
Origin  of,  theories  as  to,  i.  3,  12. 
Race  of,  i.  11-15. 
Religious  rites  of,  i.  39. 
Royal  succession  among,  i.  4,  28-29, 

■       41,  53- 


.Scots  amalgamated  with,  i.   29,  36- 

37. 
"  Pierce.'      See  Kersland. 
Pierson,  Miss,  iii.  113. 
Pinkerton  cited,  i.  316,  419. 
Pinkie  Cleugh,  ii.  9-1 1. 
Piracies  by  England,  ii.  339. 

Pirie,  Rev.  • ,  iv.  322. 

Pitcairn,  Dr,  iv.  395,  397. 

I'itcairn,   Mr,  cited,  i.  412,  416,  447; 

ii.  570,  571,  575. 
Pitcairn,  Robert,  li.  233. 
Pitcur,  Habitation  of,  iv.  20. 
Pitfirrane,  Halket  of,  ii.   317  ;  wife  of, 

361. 
Pitscottie,  Lindsay  of,   unrelialjility  of, 

i.    320,    352  ;    cited,    327,    328,   343, 

354,  377,  379,  412,  418,  504,  505  ;  ii- 

7,  10,  42,  43- 
Pitsligo,  Lord,  iv.  357,  471,  472,  485, 

Pittadro,  Lady,  iii.  206  iio(e. 
Pittenweem    witch    murder,    iv.    314- 

Pius  II.,  Pope,  cited,  i.  315-316. 

Pius  IV.,  Pope,  ii.  113. 

Pius  v.,  Pope,  ii.  158,  235. 

Placards,  ii.  265. 

Place-names,  i.  63,  84. 

Plague  (1432),  i.  309;  (1584),  ii-  550- 

55'- 
Pleas.     See  Trials. 
Pluscarden,   Book  of,  authorship  of,  i. 

307,  317  ;  author  of,  loyal  to  Jeanne 

d'Arc,    308,    317  ;    cited,   293,    294, 

302,  313. 
Pluscardine,    Mackenzie    of,    iii.     214, 

247. 
Poetrj',  iv.  412-414 ;   popular  love  of, 

376,  378. 
Poland,  Scots  in,  ii.  552. 
Police,  James  VI. 's  establishment   of, 

ii.  479. 
Pollen,  Father,  cited,  ii.   122,   1^7-158, 

172. 
Pollergeist  cases,  iv.  56,  417. 
Polwarth,    Sir   George    Hume   of,    iii. 

326,  329. 
Polwarth,  Sir  Patrick   Ilume  of.     See 

Marchmont. 
Polyandry,  i.  4. 
Pont,  Robert,  ii.  2S3,  354. 
Poor    relief    demanded    by    the    Kirk 

(1562),  ii.    116. 
Pope,  iv.  196. 

"  Popery  and  wooden  shoes,"  iii.  5. 
Population — 

Abundance  of,   in   i6th  century,    ii. 

551- 
Distribution   of,   in  feudal  times,  i. 
136. 


6o6 


INDEX. 


Portents,  ii.  34-35,  132,  505,  516;  iii. 
55,  119,  382. 

Porteous  Riot,  iv.  304,  429-430. 

Portland,  Earl  of  (Bentinck)  iv.  28, 
III,   112. 

Post-nati,  ii.  500-501. 

Pott,  George,  ii.  547. 

Pourie,  Ogilvie  of,  relations  of,  with 
Cecil,  ii.  333*  a7id  note ;  missions  to 
Low  Countries  and  Italy,  403, 
408-409 ;  text  of  letter  of,  to  the 
king,  496  -  497  ;  denies  James's 
commission,  521  ;  estimate  of,  367, 
403-404 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  327, 

l^7>,  465.  471-472,  474- 
Pourie,  Ogilvy  of  (1645),  iii.    157,   158 

note. 
Poverty  of  the  country,  iv.  58,  109. 
Power  family,  i.  308. 
Power,  Robert",  iv.  175,  202-203. 
Powrie,  ii.  208. 
Preachers  in  days  of  Bruce,  i.  210,  212. 

See  also  under  Kirk. 
Presbyterianism.     See  Kirk. 
Press — 

Beginnings  of,  ii.  265,  387. 

Censorship   of,   by  Covenanters,  iii. 
44.  53  note. 
Prester  John,  i.  376. 
Preston,  battle  of,  iv.  208-209,  238. 
Prestongrange,  Morrison  of,  iv.  no. 
Prestonpans,  iv.  468-470. 
Prestoun,  Haniillons  of,  ii.  338-339. 
Fretendants,\.  1 14,  1 28. 
Price,  F.  Compton,  cited,  ii.  568. 
Prices,  regulation  of,  by  Privy  Council, 

i>-  552-553- 
Pride's  Purge,  iii.  198. 
Primrose  (Clerk   Register),   at   trial   of 

Mitchell,  iii.  331-332  ;  cited,  290-291, 
Primrose,  Lord,  iv.  315. 
Primrose,  Archibald,  ii.  396,  504. 
Primrose,  Gilbert,  cited,  iii.  7,  8. 
Primrose,  James,    ii.  504,   529  ;    cited, 

532. 
Primrose  of  Dalmeny  (1700),  iv.  72. 

Pringle  (1589),  ii-  343.  3^3- 
Pringle,  Sanily,  i.  466. 
Privy  Council — 

Abolition  of  (1707),  iv.  141. 

Charles  I.'s  allcr-ition  iii  constitution 
of,  iii.  8-9,  II. 
Promiscuity,  i.  10. 
Prosper  of  Aquitainc  cited,  i.  25. 
Protestant  excesses.     See  under  Reform  - 

ation  in  Scotland. 
Protesters  (1651).     See  under  Kirk. 
Provosts,  i.  144. 
Ptolemy  cited,  i.  9. 
Punishments,  i.  179. 
Purdie,  Marion,  iii.  383. 


Quakers — 

Persecution  of  (1670),  iii.  371. 

Rise  of,  iii.  276. 

Utterances  of  (1716),  iv.  237-238. 

Queensberry,  Duke  of.  Treasurer,  iii. 
369  ;  at  feud  with  Aberdeen,  376 ; 
breach  with  Claverhouse,  383, 
394 ;  Royal  Commissioner  (1700), 
iv.  74,  75 ;  Privy  Seal,  80,  loi ; 
adjourns  on  Abjuration  question,  83  ; 
Commissioner  of  Union,  84,  no; 
leader  of  Court  party,  88  ;  conciliates 
Cavalier  party,  89  ;  deserts  them,  90  ; 
subservience  to  English  ministers,  91- 
92  ;  relations  with  Lovat,  94-96  ; 
loses  office,  97  ;  Royal  Commissioner 
(1706),  117,  119,  122;  negotiations 
with  Kersland,  127-128,  142-143; 
negotiations  with  Cunningham  of 
Eckatt,  132;  financial  transactions 
of,  at  the  Union,  134-135  ;  estimate 
of,  iv.  80,  87  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
iii.  326,  419,  422,  iv.  106,  118,  151. 

Queensberry,  Duke  of  (1745),  iv.  472. 

Quhele,  Clan,  i.  285. 

Quin  (Gwyn),  ii.  435. 

"  Quot  "  family,  i.  308. 

Radcliflfe,  Charles,  iv.  205. 

Rae  cited,  iv.  191,  198,  231. 

Raeburn,  Scott  of,  iii.  321. 

Ragman  Roll,  i.  179,   198;  cited,    179, 

261. 
Railston,  Stewart  of,  i.  294. 

Raine,  Rev.  ,  cited,  i.  127. 

Rait,  R.  S.,  cited,  i.  318. 

Ramsay,  iii.  375. 

Ramsay,  Gen.,  iv.  9,  10,  22. 

Ramsay  (minister),  ii.  252. 

Ramsay  (retainer  of  Moray),  ii.  220. 

Ramsay,  Sir  Alexander,  of  Dalwolsey, 

i.  252,  254,  255. 
Ramsay,  Allan,  iv.  412-415. 
Ramsay,  Sir  James,  cited,  i.  126,  302, 

947- 
Ramsay,  John,  Earl  of  Bothwell.     See 

Bothwell. 
Ramsay,  John  (James  VI. 's  page),  ii. 

453.  456-457- 

Ramsay,  Michael,  Chevalier,  iv.  349. 

Ramsay  of  Oclitertyre,  iv.  388  ;  cited, 
376-380,  412. 

Ranald,  Clan,  i.  1 19, 

Randolph  (elder  son  of  Thomas).  See 
Moray. 

Ranilolph,  John  (second  son  of  Thomas). 
See  Moray. 

Randolph,  Thos.     See  Moray, 

Randolph  (diplomatist)  (1564),  in  mar- 
riage negotiations,  ii.  133,  135136; 
dismissed    by    Mary,    160 ;    accuses 


INDEX. 


607 


Lethington  and  Kirkcaldy,  222,  230  ; 

sent    to    Edinljurgh,    227  ;    provokes 

Civil  War,  228  ;  efforts  on  Morion's 

behalf,  270;  retires  to  Berwick,  271  ; 

negotiates   league,   319-321;    cited, 

74,    76,    7S-S0,    95,    107,    109,    III, 

113,  117-119,  123-125,  137,  139,  141- 

145,  149,  155-159,  160-164,  191,  222, 

563  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  154,  260, 

261,  286,  297,  316. 
Rankeilour,    Mope   of,    iv.    382,    385 

386. 
Rasay,  Macleod  of,  i\-.  490. 
Ralhillet,   Ilackston  of,   at  the  murder 

of  Sharp,  iii.  342-344  ;  at  Drumclog, 

347;  at  Bothwell  Bridge,  351-352; 

hanged,  358. 
Rathray  of  Craighall,  Dr,  iv.   331-333. 
Rawlinson,  Mr,  iv.  372. 
Read,  John,  ii.  1S2-183. 
Reade,  Thos.,  cited,  iii.  187. 
Reay,  Lord  (Mackay  of  Strathnaver), 

iii.  12,  21,  112. 
Reay,  2nd  Lord,  iii.  271. 
Reay,  3rd  Lord,  iv.  506. 
Red  herrings,  ii.  553,  556. 
Redhall,  Hamilton  of,  iii.  235. 
Reformation  in  England — 

Latimer  on  results  of,  ii.  83. 

Origin  and  conduct  of,  i.  421-422. 
Reformation  in  Scotland — 

Articles  of  agreement  drawn   up   in 
Edinburgh  (1559),  ii-  5S>-59- 

Austere  spirit  of,  ii.  85. 

"Beggars'  Warning"  (1559),  ii.  46. 

Beginnings  of,  i.  422-423,  433. 

Bishops,  attitude  of,  ii.  89,  92,  109. 

Book  of  Common  Order,  ii.  80,  82. 

Book  of  Discipline,  ii.  79. 

Carlylean    sentiment    regarding,    iv. 

324- 
Catholics,  position  of,  ii.  88-89,  92. 
Confession  of  Faith,  ii.  74-78. 
Development  of  (1549-1556),  ii.  31. 
Disputations,  public,  ii.  45-46. 
Educational  provision,  ii.  83. 
Effect  of,  on  nobles   and   populace, 

ii.  12. 
Hymns  of,  ii.  32,  34. 
Iconoclasm  of,  i.  157. 
Lords    of   the    Congregation,    band 

of,  ii.  37-38  ;  demands  of,  43-45- 
New  learning,  the,  i.  423-424,  428. 
Persecutions.     See  Heresy. 
Protestant  excesses,  i.  471,  485  ;  ii. 

36,  48-51,  53-56,  138-139. 
Protestant  intolerance,  ii.   51,  57-58, 

78,  79,  88,  138-140,  142,  157. 
Protestant     League     with     England 

(1560),  ii.  63. 
Spread  of,  ii.  14-15. 
VOL.    IV. 


Sunday   observance    under,   ii.    108, 

549- 

Regalia — 

Macky's  description  of,  iv.  420. 
Saved   by   Ogilvy  from   the   English 
(1651),  iii.  261. 

Regality,  courts  of,  i.   151. 

Regnwald,  King  of  Northumbria,  i.  44- 
46,  57.  496. 

Reid,  A.  G. ,  evidence  as  to  Charles  \l. 
and  Montrose  discovered  by,  iii.  224. 

Religion,  savage,  nature  of,  i.  21-22. 

Remonstrants,  iii.  247-249,  251,  252, 
261,  265,  267,  272. 

Renaissance,  i.  386. 

Rentoun,  Home  of,  ii.  546-547,  572. 

Renwick,  James  (preacher),  threats  of, 
iii.  381  ;  apologetical  declaration, 
382,  389  ;  abjuration  demanded,  383- 
384,  387,  388  ;  disavowed  by  Presby- 
terians, 388  ;  excommunicates  all 
Scottish  ministers,  409-410  ;  executed, 
411;  cited,  386;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 354,  363.  375- 

Renwickites,  iii.  12. 

Reoch,  Robert,  of  Strowan,  i.  315,  325, 

354- 

Representative  assembly,  character  of, 
i.  146. 

Resby,  John,  i.  290. 

Resolutioners,  iii.  247,  249,  251,  252. 

Restalrig,  John  Hay  of,  cited,  iv.  479- 
480. 

Restalrig,  Robert  Logan  of,  Gray's 
agent,  ii.  328;  burglary  by,  337; 
hypocrisy  of,  378 ;  reckoned  a 
Catholic,  444-445 ;  possible  ally  of 
Gowrie,  464;  Bruce's  relations  with, 
ib.,  476;  hospitality  of,  464,  476, 
551  ;  sells  his  estates,  503,  556, 
571,  572  ;  divorced  wife  of,  546  ; 
contemplated  voyage  to  the  Indies, 
552.  572  ;  dealings  with  Sprot,  553  ; 
implication  in  Gowrie  conspiracy, 
569-575  ;  family  C(jnnections  of,  571  ; 
death  of,  572  ;  heir  of,  ib.  ;  his 
heirs  forfeited,  575 ;  estimate  of, 
506  ;  career  of,  572  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 249,  321,  361  no/e. 

Revenue — 

Feudal  times,  in,  i.  153. 

Source    of,    in    fifteenth   century,    i. 

Revivals,  iv.  317-318. 

Revocation   of  Charles  I.      See   under 

Church-lands. 
Rhydderch  Hael,  King,  i.  31. 
Rhynd,  Mr,  ii.  444,  459. 
Rhys,  Prof.,  cited,  i.  11-15,  19,  25,  58, 

493- 
Ricaut,  Sir  Paul,  iv.  65,  73. 

2  Q 


6o8 


INDEX. 


Riccartoun,  Hepburn  of,  ii.  196,  200. 

Riccio,  David,  rumoured  to  be  Mary's 
confessor,  ii.  122  ;  influence  of,  138, 
149,  154;  charges  against  Mary  re- 
garding, 141,  149,  159;  Darnley's 
jealousy  of,  158-160,  162;  conspir- 
acy against,  158-161  ;  murdered,  161- 
162 ;  alleged  parentage  of  James, 
307,  331  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i. 
342;  ii.  27,  139,  140,  143,  155,  164. 

Richard  of  Hexham  cited,  i.  127. 

Richard  I.,  King  of  England,  i.  116- 
117. 

Richard  H.,  King  of  England,  i.  275, 
279-280,  283-285,  297. 

Richard  HI.,  King  of  England,  i,  345, 

347- 

Richardson,  Treasurer,  ii.  220. 

Richelieu,  Card.,  iii.  71. 

Richmond,  Duke  of,  cited,  iv,  480. 

Riddel  of  Riddel,  i.  lOi. 

Riddell,  Mr,  cited,  i.  298. 

Ridley,  Matthew,  cited,  iv.  472, 

Ridolphi  plot,  ii.  234-235,  239-240. 

Rishanger  (chronicler)  cited,  i.  238. 

Rising  of  1297,  i.  1 80,  et  seq. 

Rivet,  Dr  Andre,  iii.  229. 

Rob  Roy.     See  Macgregor. 

Robe,  Rev.  ,  cited,  iv.  318. 

Robert,  Kp.  of  St  Andrews,  i.  loi. 

Robert  Bruce,  King,  relations  of,  with 
Edward  I.  (1298-1302),  i.  178,  181, 
186,  188-189,  191-193,  200,  202; 
attitude  to  Wallace,  185;  "band" 
with  Bp.  of  St  Andrews  (1304),  201 
202  ;  Comyn  murdered  by,  201-204  ; 
crowned  at  Scone,  204  ;  excommuni- 
cated, 205  ;  Battle  of  Methven,  206  ; 
wanderings,  207-208 ;  in  the  Isles, 
209,  238;  in  Galloway,  210;  Forfar 
letter  on  position  of,  210,  212-213; 
Loudon  Hill,  211  ;  successes  in  the 
field,  212-215  ;  with  walled  towns, 
215-216  ;  policy  of  dismantling  towns 
and  castles,  216,  224  ;  Bannockburn, 
217-223;  clemency  after  the  victory, 
224 ;  succession  arranged  by,  226, 
228  ;  truce  of  two  years  with  Edward 
II.,  229  ;  punishment  of  traitors,  230  ; 
covenant  with  Hartcla,  232,  241  ; 
recognised  as  king  by  the  I'ope,  232  ; 
birth  of  his  son  David,  //'.  ;  invasion 
of  N.  Ireland,  233  ;  latter  days  and 
death,  234-235  ;  heart  of,  236  ;  career 
and  characteristics  of,  ih.  ;  chivalrous 
consideration  of,  226,  234  ;  confisca- 
tions of  land  by,  136,  225,  235,  240  ; 
castles  of,  159;  care  for  navy,  234; 
grants  of  royal  burghs  by,  24 1,  502. 
Robert  II.,  King,  succession  fixed  to, 
i.    228 ;    crowned    at    Scone,     274  ; 


marriage,   ib.  ;    leans  to  peace,   275, 
278  ;  death  of,  283  ;  mentioned,  273. 

Robert  III.,  King,  reign  of,  i.  283-284  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  274,  276,  285, 
287,  289. 

Robertson,  Dr,  iv.  322,  324. 

Robertson,  E.  W.,  cited,  i.  9,  18,  41, 
43,  45-46,  48,  50,  54,  57,  58,  91-92, 
100,  103,  127,  128,  130,  135,  141, 
158-159,  496-498,  501- 

Robertson,  John,  ii.  559. 

Robertson,  Dr  Joseph,  cited,  iv.  324. 

Robertsons  of  Strowan,  i.  315,  354. 

Robsart,  Amy,  ii.  93. 

Roger  de  Hoveden,  cited,  i.  128. 

Rogers  (musician),  i.  343. 

Rogers,  Dr,  cited,  i.  492. 

Rokeby,  Thos.  of,  i.  257,  271. 

Roland  of  Galloway,  i.  115. 

Rollock,  Rev.  Alexander,  iii.  249 

RoUock,  Henry,  ii.  475. 

Rollock,  Hercules,  ii.  561. 

Rollock,  Sir  James,  iii.  107. 

Rollock,  Robert,  ii.  371,  560. 

Rollock,  Sir  William,  iii.  I19-120,  128, 
129  and  note,  16 1. 

Roman  Law — 

Bruce's  borrowing  from,  i.  228. 
Influence  of,  i.  2. 

Roman  occupation,  i.  2,  4-1 1,  16-17,  19' 

Roman  remains,  i.  62,  493-494. 

Roman  roads,  i.  16-17. 

Ronald,  King  of  Man,  i.  1 16. 

Rose,  Bp.,  iii.  415-416;  iv.  326-328. 

Rose,  Hugh,  cited,  iv.  66-67. 

Rose,  Murray,  iv.  523-524. 

Rosebery,  1st  Earl  of,  iv.  no. 

Rosebery,  House  of,  ii.  396. 

Ross,  Duke  of,  i.  369,  387-388. 

Ross,  Earl  of  (Alexander  Leslie),  i.  291. 

Ross,  Earl  of  (1333),  i.  248. 

Ross,  Earl  of  (1346),  i.  256,  265. 

Ross,  Earl  of  (17 18),  iv.  289,  290. 

Ross,  Earldom  of,  Celtic  claim  to,  i.  291. 

Ross,  Lord  (1679),  iii.  337,  345,  347  ; 
iv.  26,  27,  30-32. 

Ross,  Lord  (1706),  iv.  no. 

Ross,  Hugh  de,  i.  241. 

Ross,  Abp. ,  iv.  326. 

Ross,  John  (King's  Advocate),  i.  348. 

Ross,  John  (i)reacher),  ii.  385-387. 

Kothes,  Duke  of,  President  of  the 
Council,  iii.  283,  295 ;  on  conven- 
ticles, 306 ;  removed  from  his 
posts,  314;  trial  of  Mitchell,  33I- 
332  ;  excommunication  and  death  of, 
363  ;  estimate  of,  46 ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  299,  304,  307,  312,  313, 
314  tiole. 

Rothes,  4th   Earl  of,   i.   425,  474,  478- 

479  ;  ii-  43- 


INDEX. 


609 


Rothes,  5ih  Earl  of,  in  conspiracy 
against  Riccio,  ii.  159  ;  pardoned  by 
Mary,  163 ;  joins  hand  against 
Lennox,  2h>4  ;  taken  at  Stirling, 
316  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  152,  292, 
293,  296. 

Rothes,  6th  Earl  of,  opposes  the 
Liturgy,  iii.  27-29,  34  ;  on  Montrose, 
30;  meets  Hamilton,  36;  interview 
with  Charles,  67 ;  relations  with 
Charles,  83 ;  death  and  estimate  of, 
46,  S3  ;  cited,  27  note,  36,  37  ;  ollier- 
wise  mentioned,  14,  22,  47,  49,  63, 
66,  74. 

Rothes,  8th  Earl  of,  iv.  82,  97,  98, 
loi.   III,   184,  286. 

Rothes,  Master  of  (Norman  Leslie) 
(1546),  i.  475,  476,  479-481,  489-490. 

Rothesay,  Duke  of  (David),  i.  283-287, 
298. 

Rough,  John,  i.  468  ;  ii.  4. 

Round,  J.  11.,  cited,  i.  20. 

Row,  Rev.  John,  iii.  263  ;  cited,  2-3, 
17,   20,  26,  257  note,  265,   358. 

Row,  Walter,  ii.  362. 

Rowallan,  Muir  of,  iii.  306. 

Roxburgh,  Treaty  of,  i.  246,  247. 

Roxburgh  Castle,  i.  255,  332-333. 

Roxburghe,  ist  Earl  of,  Lieutenant  of 
the  South,  iii.  42 ;  fails  Royalist 
cause,  42  note,  156;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 515;  iii.  53,  114. 

Roxburghe,  2nd  Earl  of,  against  Lauder- 
dale, iii.  326. 

Roxburghe,  5th  Earl  of  (ist  Duke), 
Jacobite  envoy  to  Queen  Anne,  iv. 
97  ;  joins  Court  party,  98  ;  in  office, 
lOi  ;  supports  the  Union,  1 17;  re- 
lations with  Kersland,  130,  142  ; 
trusted  by  George  L,  242;  fall  of, 
357>  "h^Z'^  otherwise  mentioned,  91, 
III,    184,  289. 

Roy,  Capt.  (of  the  Bass  Rock  affair), 
iv.  46-47. 

Roy,  Gen.,  cited,  i.  17. 

Royal  College  of  Surgeons  instituted, 

Royal  courts,  i.  146,  150. 

Royal  officers,  i.  151. 

Royal  Society,  iv.  307. 

Kuddiman,  Thomas,  iv.  396-398;  cited, 

416. 
Runibold  (of  Rye  House  Plot),  iii.  390, 

399,  402,  406. 
Rupert,   Prince,  iii.  116,  144,  150,  162, 

199. 
Russell,  Lord,  iii.  375-377- 
Russell,  Sir  Francis,  ii.  313-314. 
Russell,    James,    murders    Sharp,    iii. 

343  ;  at  Bothwell  Bridge,  353  ;  cited 

on    Sharp's   murder,    342-344,    345  ; 


on  Drumclog,  346-347 ;  on  Cove- 
nanters' quarrels,  348 ;  on  Bothwell 
Bridge,  351-352. 

Rutherford  (1530),  i.  416. 

Rutherford,  Helen,  ii.  558. 

Rutherford,  Rev.  Samuel,  deprived  for 
non-conformity,  iii.  47  ;  supports  con- 
venticles, 84  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
ii.   252;  iii.  105,  135,  253,  265,  272. 

Ruthvcn,  3rd  Lord,  alleged  sorcery  of, 
ii.  126-127,  141;  on  Riccio,  158; 
conspires,  159-160;  murders  Riccio, 
160-162;  upbraids  Mary,  162,  489; 
otherwise  menti(jned,  i.  478,  491  ;  ii. 
52,  53.  66,  138,  140,  142,  163. 

Ruthven,  4th  Lord.     See  Gowrie. 

Ruthven,  Master  of  (Alexander),  ii. 
446  -  449  ;    the   Gowrie    Conspiracy, 

450-459- 
Ruthven,  Alexander,  ii.  160. 
Ruthven,     Capt.    Alexander,    ii.    449, 

551-552. 
Rutliven,  Andrew,  ii.  451,  459,  460. 
Ruthven,  Beatrix,  ii.  458.  465,  473. 
Ruthven   of  Ettrick,    Lord   (Gen.),   iii. 

40,   53.  66,  70-72. 
Rutliwell  Cross,  i.  67  ;  iii.  90  and  note. 
Ryan,  Father,  cited,  ii.  175. 

Sabbath-keeping.     See  Sunday. 

Sacheverell,  Dr,  iv.  152,  249. 

Sadleyr,  Sir  Ralph,  Queen  Margaret's 
intrigues  with,  i.  443  ;  interview  with 
James  V.,  448  ;  visits  Mary  of  Guise, 
466 ;  Brunston  the  spy  of,  474 ; 
negotiations  for  murder  of  Beaton, 
481  ;  treasurer  to  English  forces,  ii. 
9  ;  entrusted  with  Elizabeth's  aid  to 
Scottish  Protestants,  60 ;  Cecil's  in- 
structions to,  62  ;  appointed  com- 
missioner for  Mar)''s  case,  201  ;  esti- 
mate of,  i.  447  ;  cited,  453,  468-472, 
486,  508  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  451, 
457,  465  ;  ii.  225. 

Sage,  Bp.,  iv.  326. 

Saint-Simon  cited,  iv.  147-148,  168, 
187-189,  245-246. 

St  Albans  Chronicle  cited,  i.  175. 

St  Andrews — 

Abbey  Church,  completion  of,  i.  237. 
Archiepiscopal  see,   created,   i.   341  ; 

dispute  as  to  see  (15 13- 15),  420. 
Bishop  of,  wealth  of,  i.  154. 
Bruce's  parliament  at  (1309),  i.  214. 
Cathedral  of,  i.  158. 
Constaniine  H.  at,  i.  47,  49. 
Legend  of,  cited,  i.  96. 
Name  of,  ancient,  i.  44. 
Protestant  excesses  at,  ii.  54-55. 
Rise  of  (Sth  and  9th  cent.),  i.  37,  43, 
44, 


6io 


INDEX. 


Siege  of  Beaton's  murderers  in,  ii.  2- 

4,  7,  20-2I. 

Treasures  of,  i.  44  ;  ii.  55. 
St  Andrews  University — 

Black  capping  stone  at,  ii.  560. 

Chairs  at,  iv.  403. 

Commission  on  (1696),  iv.  399-403. 

Condition  of,  in  James  VI.'s  reign, 
ii.  559-561. 

Curriculum,  iv.  400-402. 

Degree  of  D.D.  at,  ii.  510. 

Examinations,  iv.  402. 

Founding  of,  i.  296. 

Lectures,  iv.  402. 

Library,  iv.  411. 

Plundering  and  neglect  of,  ii.  559- 
561  ;  iii.  43;  iv.  403. 

Regenting,  system  of,  iv.  399-400. 

Residence  at,  iv.  407. 

St  Leonard's  College,  i.  384,  424  ;  ii. 
236  ;  combined  with  St  Salvator's, 
iv.  403. 

St  Salvator's  College,  i.  339,  354; 
iv.  403. 

Students,  grades  of,  iv.  406-407. 
St  Columba.     See  Columba. 
St  John.     See  Bolingbroke. 
St  Margaret's  Day,  i.  126. 
St  Ninian,  i.  II,  24-25. 
St  Patricius.     See  Patricius. 
Saladin  Tithe,  i.  I16,  147. 
Salisbury,   1st  Earl  of  (Robert  Cecil), 

intrigues   with   Bruce   the    preacher, 

ii.    435  ;    plays   Tudor    game,    471  ; 

negotiations   with   Mar  and  Kinloss, 

472  ;    veers  to  James,   472-473  ;    on 

Catholic  priests,  478  ;  charges  against 

Balmerino,  503  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 

375.   383.  385.   391.  409,  434,   439. 

440,  443,  446^449,  465,  470.  572. 
Sallagh  cited,  iii.  216. 
Salmon — 

Netting  of,  iii.  44. 

Preservati(jn  (1424),  i.  301. 
Sahoun,  Andrew  Fletcher  of,  iv.  430. 
Saltoun,   Fletcher  of,  iii.  397  ;  iv.   61, 

99,  100,  106,  107,  III,  122,  132. 
Saltoun,  Frazor  of,  iv.  93. 
Sandilands,  ii.  73,  75,  94,  160. 
"Satire  of  the  Three  Estates,"  i.  448. 
Sauchie,  Shaw  of,  i.  350. 
Savage,  Thomas,  iv.  485. 
Savile,  Lord,  iii.  76-77,  81. 
Saxe,  Marshal,  iv.  439,  443,  447-448. 
Scalacronica,  writing  of,  i.    259  ;  cited, 

180-182,  199,  203-204,  230,  231,  240, 

244,  253,  255,  261, 
.Scandinavians.     See  Northmen. 
Schevez,  Abji.  of  .St  Andrews,  i.  341, 

345.  353,  365-  381. 


Scolocs,  i.  156-157. 
Scone — 

Monastery  founded  at,  i.  lOO. 

Palace  of,  sacked  by  Protestants,  ii, 

56. 
Stone  of,  i.  37,  39. 
Scone,  Lord,  ii.  492. 
Scot,  John,  i.  1 14. 
Scot,  Michael,  i.  296. 
Scot,  Reginald,  ii.  352,  432. 
Scothouse,  Macdonell  of,  iv.  459,  508,. 

51.3.  535- 
Scotia — 

Justiciaries  for,  i.  150. 

Lothian,  enmity  against,  i.  162. 

Southern  boundary  of,  question  as  to, 
i.  92,  94,  126. 
Scotland — 

Four  kingdoms  of,  in  6th  cent.,  i.  27- 
28,  30. 

Name,  origin  of,  i.  37. 
Scots — 

Dalriad,  see  Dalriada. 

Irish  origin  of,  i.  12. 

Language  of,  i.  12,  14. 

Picts  amalgamated   with,   i.  29,  36- 

37. 

Settlement  of,  i.  2. 

Scott,  Capt.  Carolina,  iv.  520. 

Scott,  Sir  James,  iii.  122. 

Scott,  Thomas,  of  Abbotshall,  ii.  319. 

Scott,  W.  R.,  cited,  iv.  60  note. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter  (son  of  Buccleuch 
1651),  iii.  253. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  of  Abbotsford,  rela- 
tions of,  with  Dr  M'Crie,  iv.  323- 
324  ;  cited,  i.  508  ;  ii.  92  ;  iii.  339- 
340,  377,  381  ;  iv.  21,  220,  250, 
374,  428,  513,  527,  528;  mentioned, 
140. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  of  Branxholme.  See 
Buccleuch,  Scott  of  (1526). 

Scott  of  Buccleugh,  Harden,  &c.  See 
Buccleugh,  Harden,  &c. 

Scougal,  John  of,  i.  344. 

Scrope,  Lord  (1346),  i.  257. 

Scrope,  Lord  (i433>,  '•  309- 

Scrope,  Lord  (1596),  ii.  407. 

Scrymgeour,  House  of,  loyalty  of,  i, 
240. 

Scrymgeour,  Nicholas,  i.  185,  240. 

Scrymgeour  Wcdderburns,  i.   100. 

Seaficld,  Earl  of,  negotiations  of,  with 
Cavalier  p.arty,  iv.  88-89  J  j"'"s  them, 
91  ;  Chancellor,  loi  ;  estimate  of,, 
83-84  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  72,  8o» 
96,  no,  119,  134. 

Seaforth,  Ivul  (1645),  uitli  Montrose, 
iii.  137  ;  against  him,  140,  141,  144; 
in    Holland,   206,    211,   223;  deserts 


INDEX. 


6ll 


Montrose,    214;    estimate   of,    207, 
211;   mentioned,   78. 

Seaforth,  Karl  (1650),  banished,  iii. 
230  ;  forfeited,  272  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 247,  268. 

Seaforth,  Karl  (1686),  iii.  409. 

Seaforth,  Earl  (1715-25),  occupies 
Inverness,  iv.  213 ;  makes  submis- 
sion to  George,  232  ;  the  Spanish 
expedition  (1719),  269,  271,  272; 
leaves  Jacobite  cause,  369  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  182,  191,  212,  215, 
223-224. 

Seaforth,  Earl  (1745),  iv.  491. 

Second  sight,  i.  70 ;  iv.  378-379. 

Selby,  Walter  de,  i.  257. 

Selkirk  feud  (1613),  ii.  541-542. 

Sempil,  ii.  219. 

Sempil,  Col.,  ii.  340. 

Sempil,  Lord  (Hugh),  iv.  454. 

Sempil,  Lord  (Robert),  in  James's  con- 
fidence, iv.  425  ;  Murray's  complaints 
of,  441,  450  ;  memoir  to  Cardinal 
Fleury,  438  ;  feud  with  Drummond 
and  Alarischal,  440 ;  confusion  re- 
garding, 454  ;  mentioned,  437. 

Sempill,  Rev.  Gabriel,  cited,  iii.  307. 

Sempill,  John,  ii.  52,  132. 

Sempill,  John,  of  Beltrees,  ii.  259. 

Serfs.     See  Bondage. 

Services,  commutation  of,  for  money, 
i.  140-141. 

Session  Court.     See  under  Judicature, 

Seton,  Lord  (1306),  i.  206. 

Seton,  7th  Lord  (George),  contrives 
Beaton's  release,  i.  466  ;  attacks 
Whitelaw,  ii.  60  ;  released  by  Moray, 
217;  otherwise  mentioned,  19,  280, 
2S6,  367,  402,  438. 

Seton  (young,  1583),  ii.  293. 

Seton,  Alexander  de,  i.  249. 

.Seton,  Sir  Alexander,  i.  221,  247. 

Seton,  Sir  Alexander,  of  Gordon 
(p:arl  of  Huntly),  i.  325,  330. 

Seton,  Sir  Alexander,  Lord  Urquhart. 
See  Dunfermline. 

Seton,  Sir  Christopher,  i.  235. 

Seton,  Father  James,  cited,  ii.  495. 

Seton,  Thomas,  i.  247,  248,  503. 

Seton-Gordon,  House  of,  i.  371. 

Seven  Earls  with  elective  rights,  i.  40, 
167,  174-175,  197- 

Seven  men  of  Moidart,  iv.  458. 

Sevcrus,  i.  9-10. 

Shaftesbury,  ist  Earl  of,  iii.  326. 

Shafto,  Capt.,  iv.  210. 

Sharp,  Rev.  James,  Abp.  of  St 
Andrews,  encounters  of,  with  Waris- 
toun,  iii.  277  ;  relations  and  corres- 
pondence    with     Douglas,     283-2S6, 


288-289  ;  desire  for  recall,  284,  288  ; 
relations  with  Monk,  285  ;  letters  to 
Lauderdale  and  Drummond,  291 
and  note ;  demoralisation  of,  292  ; 
despised  by  well-born  associates,  ib.; 
gets  St  Andrews,  299;  asks  for  a 
Court  of  High  Commission,  305  ;  in- 
trigues against  nobles,  306-307; 
under  ecclesiastical  arrest,  313;  shot 
at  by  Mitchell,  317,  330-331  ;  on 
the  Act  of  Supremacy  (1669),  321  ; 
mobbed  by  women,  327 ;  trial  of 
Mitchell,  332,  341-342;  murder  of, 
339,  342-344  ;  traditional  estimate  of 
the  murderers,  339,  356  ;  contempor- 
ary 'Life'  of,  341  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, i.  287 ;  iii.  256,  276,  300, 
301,  312. 

Sharp,  Sir  James,  iv.  197. 

Sharp,  William,  cited,  iii.  344. 

Sharpe,  C.  K.,  cited,  iii.  319. 

Shaw,  Miss,  of  Bargarran  (Mrs  Miller), 
iv.  314,  417-419- 

Shaw,  Sir  John,  iii.  404. 

Shawfield,  Campbell  of,  iv.  359. 

Sheild,  Rev.  — -,  disowned  by  the  Kirk, 
iv.  27  ;  reconciled  to  her,  34-35  ;  sails 
to  Darien,  70-71  ;  cited,  iii.  384,  386, 
388,  389  ;  iv.  23. 

Sheldon,  Mr  (tutor  to  James  VHL), 
iv.  148. 

Sheldon,  Abp.  of  Canterbury,  iii.  314. 

Sheldon,  Mrs,  iv.  347,  348,  350-352. 

Shepherd,  Mr,  iii.  378-380. 

Sheridan,  Sir  Thomas,  Governor  to 
Prince  Charles,  iv.  349 ;  in  the  '45, 
451,  452;  flight  to  France,  518; 
cited,  494 ;  estimate  of,  449  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  245,  427,  457,  516. 

Sheriffs,  i.  151-152. 

Shetland,    .Scottish    acquisition    of,    i, 

340. 
Shrewsbury,  Duke  of  (1714),   iv.    170, 

180,  iSi,  251. 
Shrewsbury,  Lord  (1569),  ii.  214,  31 1. 
Shrewsbury,  battle  of,  i.  288. 
Shuttleworth,  iv.  207,  238. 
Sibhald,  Col.,  iii.  II9-120,  129. 
Sibbald,  John,  i.  294. 
Sibylla,  Queen,  i.  lOO. 
Sidhe  (Sidh\  i.  22-24,  37,  38,  495. 
Sidney,  Sir  Henry,  ii.  1 15. 
Sidney,  Sir  Philip,  ii.  313,  321,  324. 
Sigurd,  Jarl,  i.  52. 
Simeon  of  Durham  cited,  i.  48,  51,  90. 

91- 

Simpson,  Rev.  (Protester),  iii.  277. 

Simpson  (spy),  iv.  28. 

Simpson,  .-Vndrew  (preacher),  ii.  513. 

Simpson,  Patrick,  ii.  437. 


6l2 


INDEX. 


Simson,   Prof.,   iv.    282,  283,  290-291, 

294-297.  302. 

Sinclair,  Dean  of  Restalrig,  ii.  128. 

Sinclair,  7lh  Lord,  changes  sides,  iii. 
114;  forfeited,  272;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 27,   150,  206,  211,  247. 

Sinclair,  Master  of  (son  of  7th  Lord 
Sinclair),  raid  by,  iv.  194  ;  supports 
Mackintosh,  197  ;  Sheriffmuir,  216- 
218  ;  retires  with  Huntly,  222  ;  cited, 
189-191,  19S-200,  210-212,  21S,  220, 
224  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  199,  207, 
212,  215,  219-221. 

Sinclair,  Prof,  cited,  iv.  56. 

Sinclair,  Henry,  Bp.  of  Ross,  i.  356. 

Sinclair,  John,  i.  282. 

Sinclair,  Oliver,  i.  441,  455,  462,  464. 

Sinclair,  Walter,  i.  282. 

Sinclair,  Wm.,  Bp.  of  Dunkeki,  i.  226- 
227,  246,  249. 

Sitric,  King  of  Northumbria,  i.  44. 

Siward,  Earl  of  Northumbria,  i.  54-55. 

Skelmorley,  Sir  James  Montgomery  of, 
iii.  422  ;  iv.  2,  5,  26-31. 

Skene  cited,  i.  6,7,  11-12,  14,  15,  18- 
19,  26-29,  39,  43,  44,  46,  49,  51,  58, 
86-87,  92,  96,  100,  126,  158,  284. 

Skene  of  Curriehill,  ii.  403. 

Sleat,  House  of,  i.  509. 

Sleat,  Macdonald  of  (1601),  ii,  527. 

Sleat,  Macdonald  of  (1689),  joins  Dun- 
dee, iv.  II  ;  at  Killiecrankie,  19-20; 
withdraws,  22  ;  submission  of,  re- 
quired, 36,  38. 

Sleat,  Macdonald  of  (171S).  iv.  212, 
215. 

Sleat,  Sir  Alexander  Macdonald  of 
(1745),  backward  towards  Prince 
Charles,  iii.  266;  iv.  451,  453,  458- 
459  ;  abduction  of  Lady  Grange,  384, 
385  ;  mentioned,  439. 

Sleat,  Sir  James  Macdonald  of  (1652), 
iii.  266. 

Sleat,  Sir  James  Macdonald  of  (1725), 
iv.  368. 

Smellic,  Rev.  Alexander,  cited,  iii.  296 
^'ote,  339,  352,  389. 

Smeaton,  Rev. ,  ii.  252,  283. 

Smith,  Capt.,  iii.   107. 

Smith,  Mrs,  iii.  398,  405. 

Smith,  John,  iii.  228. 

Smollett,  Tobias,  of  Bonhili,  ii.  528; 
iv.    no,  256. 

Smyth,  Adjutant-Oen.,  iii.  275. 

Smyton,  Rev.  David,  iv.  329. 

Soap,  ii.  555. 

Sobieska,  Princess  Maria  ('Icmentina. 
See  Clementina,  Queen. 

Soljieski,  Prince  James,  iv.  273-275, 
27S. 


Social  history,  materials  for,  i.  59-60 ; 

probable  details  of,  67. 
Socialism,  early  advocacy  of,  i.  290,  310. 
Solemn   League   and   Covenant.       See 

under  Kirk. 
Sol  way     Moss,      i.     453-455.      457; 

Scottish  prisoners  from,  461-462. 
Somerled    MacGillebride,    i.    109- in, 

128;  descendants  of,   no,  343,  398, 

495- 

Somerset,  Duke  of  (1461),  i.  335-336. 

Somerset,  Duke  of  (Earl  of  Hertford), 
before  Solway  Moss,  i.  454  ;  savage 
instructions  to,  476 ;  burns  Edinburgh 
and  retires,  477  -  478  ;  sent  to  the 
Border  (1545),  481-483;  intrigues- 
for  Mary's  marriage,  ii.  6 ;  Pinkie 
Cleugh,  9-11  ;  refuses  quarter,  13; 
imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  14  ;  exe- 
cution of,  26  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
i.  479;  ii.  1-2, 

Somerset,  Duke  of  (1706),  iv.  113. 

Somerset,  Earl  of  (142 1),  i.  294,  295. 

Somerset,  Earl  of  (Sir  Robert  Ker),  ii. 

499.  504,  512.  525- 
Somerville,  Lord  (1466),  i.  339. 
Somerville,  Lord  (1544),  i.  462,  472; 

ii.  78. 
Somerville  of  Carnwath.    See  Carnwath. 
Songs  and  ballads,  iv.  412-414. 
Sorcery.     See  Witchcraft,  Witches. 
Soining,  i.  304  ;  ii.  530,  536. 
Soulis,  Lord,  i.  225,  230,  235. 
Southampton,  ii.  512. 
Southesk,  1st  Karl  of,  iii.  42  tiote,  69. 
Southesk,    5th   Earl  of,   iv.    182,    190, 

191,   199,  231,  342. 
Southwell  (diplomatist)  (1544),  i.  462. 
Spain  {see  also  Philip  IV.) — 

Ambassadors  from  (1489),  i.  363. 
Armada,  the,  ii.  340,  342. 
"Blanks"    conspiracy,    ii.    363-364, 

366. 
Darien    Settlement's   relations  with, 

iv.  6769,  71-72. 
France  in  rivalry  with,  ii.  275,  282  ; 

at  war  with  (1718),  iv.  263. 
Jacobite  attempt  of  1715  encouraged 

by,  iv.  173,  181. 
Jacobite  expedition  of  17 18 — prelim- 
inary  negotiations,    iv.     262-265; 
James's  arrival  in  Spain,  265  ;  the 
start,  266-267  ;  ruin,  26S. 
Jacobite   rising  of   1745   assisted   by, 

iv.    506. 
Marriage  project  (1495-6),  i.  368. 
Scottish  Catholics'  relations  with,  ii. 

334-335.  340,  343.  408. 
War  of  Jenkins's  ear  (1739),  iv.  427, 

435- 


INDEX. 


613 


Spalding  cited,  iii.  6-7,  56,  59,  90,  127- 

128. 
Spany;,   Rev.  ,  iii.    105,  201,   206, 

207  ;  cited,  iv.  307. 
Sparre  (Swede),  iv.  256-258. 
Speedy  Ketiti-n,  The,  iv.  71,  102-105. 
Spencer  and  Gillen  cited,  i.  493. 
Spens,  John,  ii.  71- 
Spenser,  Edmund,  ii.  408,  435. 
Spot,    Douyias   of,   ii.    355,    445,    481, 

57'.  572. 
Spottiswoode,  Abp.  of  Glasgow  (later 
of  St  Andrews),  Privy  Councillor 
(1604),  ii.  480;  Moderator,  493  ;  in- 
trigues against  Balmerino,  502  ;  in- 
.solent  cruelty  of,  to  Father  Ogilvie, 
507;  iii.  17,  35;  obtains  primacy  of 
Scotland,  ii.  510  ;  Privy  Councillor 
(1625),  iii.  7  ;  at  James'.s  funeral,  ib. ; 
precedence  of,  11;  on  the  Articles  of 
Penh,  16;  at  Charles's  coronation, 
20  ;  on  the  Liturgy,  28  ;  nervous  of 
returning  to  Scotland,  35  ;  allega- 
tions against,  43  ;  death  of,  72  ; 
churches  built  under,  24 ;  cited,  ii. 
256,    285,    346,    380,    418,    420-421, 

433.  487,  489,  500.   5.1^.  560.  575  ; 

iii.  4 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  ii.  427, 

488,  513;  iii.  21,  34. 
Spottiswoode,  John,  ii.  73. 
Spottiswoode,   Sir    Robert,  iii.   72,   98, 

135,    156,   161,   162. 
Sprot,  George  (1608),  hush-money  of, 

i'-  553  !  on  sale  of  Kestalrig  estates, 

556 ;    arrest    and    imprisonment   of, 

569,  572-573  ;  confessions  of,  as  to 
Gowrie  conspiracy,  492,  545,  570- 
571,  573-575  ;  execution  of,  493,  545, 

570,  574-575- 

Sprot,  George  (1752),  iii.  205. 

Sprott,  Dr,  cited,  iii.    18  note,  25,   27 

note. 
Spuilzies,  ii.  339,  523. 
Stafford,  Mr,  iv.  425,   454  ;  cited,  478- 

479- 

Stair,  1st  Earl  of  (Sir  John  Dalrymple), 
loses  his  case  against  Clavcrhouse, 
iii.  373  ;  Lord  Advocate,  409  ;  iv.  2  ; 
attack  on,  5  ;  the  Glencoe  Massacre, 
37-40,  42-43,  45-46,  54-55  ;  dismissed 
from  office  and  specially  favoured, 
55  ;  East  India  Co.,  61  ;  Union  Com- 
missioner, 84,  no,  112;  cited,  4, 
128  ;  otherwise  menti(jned,  iii.  422  ; 
iv.    73,  76. 

Stair,  2nd  Earl  of,  relations  of,  with 
Alexander  MacdonaKl.iv.  245  ;  letter 
from  La  Grange  to,  246-247  ;  recalled 
from  Paris,  335  ;  cited,  189,  252, 
258,  260,  263,    270,    388 ;    otherwise 


mentioned,    184,   188-189,  227,  236, 
242,  392,  463,  472. 

Stair,  Visc(junl  (Sir  James  Dalrymple), 
on  the  Test  Act  (i68i),  iii.  367; 
relations  with  Claverhouse,  371-373  ; 
prosecution  of  Renwick,  411;  on 
torture,  422  ;  estimate  of,  iv.  6  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  2,  5,  42. 

Standcn,  Anthony,  ii.  161,  163. 

Stanehouse,  Hamilton  of,  i.  506. 

Stanhope,  ist  Earl,  intercedes  for 
Nairne,  iv.  239 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 227,  239,  250,  258,  259,  268. 

Stanhope,  Lord,  cited,  iv.  342. 

Stanley  at  Flodden,  i.  379-380. 

Stapleton,  Gen.,  iv.  503. 

Steel,  David,  iii.  393-395- 

Steele,  Sir  Richard,  iv.  239. 

Steenstrup  cited,  i.  497-499. 

Stephen,  King  of  England,  i.  89,  103- 
105,  107,  108. 

Stevenson,  Dr,  cited,  i.  199. 

Stevenson,  U.  L.,  cileil,  ii.  554. 

Stevenson,  W.  H.,  cited,  i.  497-499. 

Steward,  the  (Filzalan),  i.  120,  136. 

Steward,  the(i3i3),  i.  219,  221-222. 

Steward,  the  (successor  to  Walter),  at 
Halidon  Hill,  i.  248 ;  escapes  to 
Bute,  249  ;  in  arms  against  Balliol, 
250-252  ;  sole  regent,  254 ;  inter- 
cedes for  Douglas  of  Liddesdale, 
255-256 ;  lands  of,  256 ;  Neville's 
Cross,  257-258,  271  ;  again  regent, 
258;  relations  with  David,  ib.,  261, 
263,  264 ;  to  subdue  John  of  the 
Isles,  265  ;  imprisoned  in  Loch  Leven 
Castle,  266;  question  as  to  legitim- 
acy of  children  of,  263. 

Steward,  Sir  James  the,  swears  fealty  to 
Edward  I.  of  England,  i.  178  ;  at 
Stirling  Bridge,  181  -  184  ;  exiled, 
193;  otherwise  mentioned,  124,  162, 
163,  172,  173. 

Steward,  Walter  the,  marriage  of,  with 
daughter  of  Bruce,  i.  225,  226 ;  son 
of,  crowned,  274. 

Stewart,  Abp.,  i.  424. 

Stewart,  Bp.,  iv.  410. 

Stewart,  Bj).  of  Caithness  (Andrew)^  i- 
381,  384- 

Stewart,  Dr,  cited,  ii.  186. 

Stewart,  Rev.  Dr,  cited,  iii.  396. 

Stewart,  Allan,  i.  249. 

Stewart,  Col.  Alexander,  iii.  94-96. 

Stewart,  Sir  Alexander,  ii.  328,  334. 

Stewart,  Sir  Andrew,  i.  329. 

Stewart,  Arabella.     See  Stuart. 

Stewart,  Duncan  (son  of  the  Wolf),  i 
284. 

Stewart,  Henry.     See  Methven. 


6i4 


INDEX. 


Stewart,  Hercules,  ii,  394,  400. 
Stewart,  James  the.     See  Steward  . 
Stewart,  Capt.  James.     See  Arran. 
Stewart,  Lord  James.     See  Moray. 
Stewart,  Sir  James  (stepfather  of  James 

II.),  i.  326. 
Stewart,  Sir  James  (Lord   Advocate), 

iv.  56,  61, '80,   133,   161. 
Stewart,  Col.  John  Roy,  iv.  428,  484, 

485,  493>  504,  524- 
Stewart,  Lord  Robert.     See  Stuart. 
Stewart,  Sir  Robert,  i.  312. 
Stewart,   Walter,    at   Bannockburn,   i. 

218-219  >  made  governor  of  Berwick, 

228 ;   at   Byland,    231  ;   in   siege   of 

Berwick,  239  ;  at  Halidon  Hill,  248. 
Stewart,  Capt.  Waller,  iii.  87-89. 
Stewart,    Walter,     Earl    of    Menteith 

(1286),  i.   163. 
Stewart,  Wm.,  Prior  of  Blantyre,  ii.  402. 
Stewart,  Capt.  Wm.,  iii.  93-95. 
.Stewart,  Col.  Wm.  (1583),  mission  of, 

to  Elizabeth,  ii.  290-291  ;  promoted, 

300 ;  mission  to  the  Low  Countries, 

394  ;  seeks  to  avoid  young  Gowrie, 

446  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  292,  296, 

316. 
Stewart,  Col.  Wm.  (1644),  iii.  II2. 
Stewart,  Sir  Wm.  (1400),  i.  288. 
Stewart,  Sir  Wm.  (1568),  ii.  194-195. 
Stewart,  Sir  Wm.  (1587),  ii.  336,  341. 
Stewart,  Sir  Wm.  (1639),  iii.  54. 
.Stewart  of  Ballechin,  Grandtully,  &c. 

See  Ballechin,  Grandtully,  &c. 
Stewarts  (Fitzalans),  i.  lOi,  180. 
Stirling — 

Craftsmen  of,  ii.  547-548,  556. 

Seal  of  burgh  of,  i.  162. 
Stirling   Bridge,   battle  of,  i.    182-184, 

198. 
Stirling  Castle — 

Bruce's   investment  of,    i.    216 ;    his 
dismantling  of,   224. 

Edward   I.'s  loss  of  (1299),   i.    189; 
his  capture  of  (1304),   193. 

James   III.    treacherously    shut    out 
from,  i.   350. 
Stirling  (Protester),  iii.  290,  312. 
Stirling,  Earl  of  (Sir  Wm.  Alexander), 

iii.  9-1 1,  73. 
Stirling,  Sir  Ilenry,  iv.  257,  258,  260. 
Stirling  of  Keir.     See  Kcir. 
Stokes,  Wliiik-y,  cited,  i.   15. 
Stone  churches,  i.  68. 
Stonywood,  Laird  of,  iv.  483,  505. 
Story,    Principal,   cited,    iii.    379,   380, 

395.407.  4 '5,  416;  iv.  50. 
Strachan,  Capl.,  iii.  387. 
Straclian,   Col.,    defeats  Montrose,    iii. 

214;   excommunicated,   249;   career 


of,  247 ;  otherwise  mentioned,  189 
note,  234,  244,  248. 

Strafford,  Earl  of  (Thos.  Wentworth), 
accession  of,  to  royal  cause,  iii.  6  ; 
plan  for  subduing  the  Scots,  36  ;  ad- 
vice as  to  army  in  Ireland,  73  and 
note  ;  empowered  by  Charles  to  lead 
Irish  army  to  Scotland,  78  ;  execu- 
tion of,  82,  91  ;  Charles's  remorse  re- 
garding, 171  and  note;  otherwise 
mentioned,   53,   80,   81. 

Strafford,   Earl  of  (1722-27),   iv.    339, 

423- 
Straiton,  Capt.,  iv.  232,  233,  259. 
Strange,  Sir  Robert,  cited,  iv.  514-515. 
Stratford,  Canon,  cited,  iv.  351. 
Strathallan,  Lord  (1715),  iv.  182. 
Strathallan,  Lord  (1724),  iv.  357. 
Strathallan,  Lord  (1745),  iv.  476,  480, 

482,  486,  491. 
Strathallan,    Lord   (1744-45),    '^'-  447, 

463- 
Strathallan,  Master  of  (1745),  iv.  472. 
Strathclyde  (Cumbria) — 

"Commendation"  of,  i.  45. 

Eadmund's  conquest  of,  i.  48. 

Kingdom  of,  i.  28-31. 

Lake-dwellings  in,  i.  60. 

Malcolm  II.  s  alliance  with,  i.  52. 

Pictland,  relations  with,  i.  42,  44. 

William  Rufus's  pretensions  in,  i.  94. 
Strathearn,  Earl  of  (1346),  i.  258. 
Strathearn,   Earl  of  (Malise)  (1427),  i. 

311,  312,  323,  331. 
Strathearn,  Earldom  of,  i.  31 1. 
Strathearn,  Malise  of,  i.  lOl. 
Strathmashie,    Macpherson    of,    cited, 

iv.  504. 
Strathmore,  5th  Earl  of,  iv.  198,  218, 
Strathmore,  6th  Earl  of,  iv.  331,  333, 

357- 
Stratilon,  David,  i.  431-433. 
Strickland,  Earl  of,  iv.  458,  473. 
Strickland,  Miss,  cited,  ii.  397. 
.Strozzi,  Leo,  Prior  of  Capua,  ii.  7,  21. 
Strowan,  Robert  Reoch  of,  i.  315,  325, 

354- 

Struan,  Robertson  of  (1705- 17 15),  iv. 
117,   190,  231. 

Struan,  Robertsons  of  (1745),  iv.  379- 
380,  463,  496. 

Struan  (.Strowan),  Robertsons  of,  an- 
cestor of,  i.  315,  354. 

Struthers  (})reacher),  ii.  513  ;  iii.  18. 

Struthcrs,  Mr,  cited,  iv.  299. 

Stuart,  Col.,  iv.  183. 

Stuart,  Provost,  iv.  465-466. 

Stuart,  Rev.  ,  iii.  312. 

Stuart,  Albany,  i.  343-347,  35',  358- 
359- 


INDEX. 


615 


Stuart,  Andrew,  cited,  i.  273. 

Stuart,    Arabella,    ii.    260,    262,    339, 

444. 
Stuart,  Henry,  Cardinal  Duke  of  York, 

iv.    350,    426,    444-445,    474,    476, 

477. 

Stuart,  Lord  James.     See  Moray. 

Stuart,  Lord  John,  ii.  105,  108. 

Stuart,  Sir  John,  i.  294. 

Stuart,  Lady  Louisa,  cited,  iv.  436. 

Stuart,  Lord  Robert,  at  trial  of  rebels, 
ii.  71  ;  protects  Catholic  priest,  105  ; 
relations  with  Darnley,  137,  175I; 
warns  Morton,  269 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 108,  142,  161. 

Stuart  kings — 

Celtic  blood  of,  alleged,  i.  283. 

Descent  of,  i.  273-274. 

Legitimacy  of,  question  as  to,  i.  274. 

Stuarts  of  Appin,  i.  372. 

Stuteville,  Nicholas  de,  i.  112,  129. 

Succession  to  the  throne — 
Direct  line,  in,  i.  53. 
Gift  of  overlord,  by,  i.  127. 
Pictish,  i.  41,  53,  127. 

Sullivan,  Col.,  at  Prestonpans,  iv. 
468 ;  blamed  for  disorderly  retreat, 
500;  at  Culloden,  508,  516,  524- 
525;  Murray's  relations  with,  518; 
otherwise  mentioned,  457-458,  462, 
466,  474,  475,  484,  494,  505. 

Sully  of  Bethune,  ii.  441. 

Sumptuary  laws,  i.  307,  333. 

Sunday  observance,  i.  423,  427 ;  ii. 
108,  549. 

Sunderland,  Lord,  iv.  355. 

Superstitions,  survival  of,  i.  154- 155. 

Surrey,  Earl  of  (1497),  i.  370,  374,  377, 
378-381,  389-390. 

Surrey,  Earl  of  (1523),  i.  401. 

Sussex,  Earl  of,  appointed  Commis- 
sioner for  Mary's  case,  ii.  201  ;  views 
on  the  situation,  203  ;  devastations 
by,  228-229,  251  ;  correspondence 
with  Lethington,  230-231  ;  otherwise 
mentioned,  231,  232. 

Sutherland,  Countess  of,  ii.  506. 

Sutherland,  Earl  of  (1333),  i.  248. 

Sutherland,  Earl  of  (1637),  iii.  27. 

Sutherland,  Earl  of  (1706),  iv.  no. 

Sutherland,  Earl  of  (1715),  iv.  213, 
214,  219,  221,  223-226. 

Sutherland,  Earl  of  (1725),  iv.  368. 

Sutton,  Sir  Robert,  iv.  336. 

Sweden.     See  Charles  XIL 

Swetlenham,  Capt.,  iv.  461. 

Swift,  Dean,  iv.  165,  278;  cited,  iii. 
412  ;  iv.  167. 

Swinburne,  Edward,  of  Capheaton,  iv. 
240. 


Swinton,  Sir  John,  i.  287. 
Swintoun  (1530),  i.  416. 
Swintoun  (Quaker),  iii.  321. 
Sydserf,  15p.  of  Galloway,  iii.  299. 
Syme,  John,  ii.  29,  34,  252. 

Tables,  the.     See  Committee  cf  Public 

Safety. 
Taboos,  i.  23. 
Tacitus  cited,  i.  5-9,  13,  21. 
Tacksmen,  i.  139. 
Tailor,  duel  of  a,  i.  317. 
Tain  church,  i.  157. 
Talbot,  Lord  (1332),  i.  245. 
Talbot,  James  (the  Crow),  iv.  196,  240. 
Talla,     Hay    of,    ii.     171,     175,     177; 

depositions  of,  195,  208-209. 
Talorcan,  King,  i.  32,  33. 
Tamworth  (diplomatist),  ii.  148,  149. 
Tanistry,  i.  41,  57,  108. 
Tankerville,  Lord,  iv.  66. 
Tantallon  Castle,  i.  305. 
Tarbet.     See  Cromarty. 
Tarbet  Castle,  i.  234-235. 
Tarras,  Lord,  iii.  377. 
Taxation — 

Cess  for  English  army  of  occupation 
(1651),  iii.  261,  269,  277,  278. 

Constitutional    nature    of,    by    early 
kings,  i.  145. 

Customs.     See  that  title. 

David  IL's  ransom,  for,  i.  260-261, 
265,  266. 

Ecclesiastical,  i.  154. 

Excise  on  beer  and  ale  (1661),  iii. 

Income  Tax  on  investments,  ii.  516. 
Inquest  for,  proposed  (1556),  ii.  24. 
James  I.'s  ransom,  for,  i.  301, 
James  VI. 's  demands  refused,  ii.  447. 
Linen  duty  (1709),  iv.  153. 
Malt  tax  (1712),  iv.  163,  170;  (1724), 

357:363.  369- 
Octavians.     See  that  title. 
Parliamentary  control  of,  i.  267. 
Union  Treaty  in  relation  to,  iv.  113- 

Taylor,  Jeremy,  iii.  298,  302. 

Tea-drinking,  iv.  412-413. 

Team,  i.  148. 

Telfair,  Rev.  Alexander,  iv.  56,  160. 

Tencin,  Cardinal,  iv.  438,  442,  444. 

Territorial  names,  i.  136. 

Terry,  Prof.  Sanford,  cited,  iv.  17  note, 

21  note. 
Test  Act  (1681),  iii.   367-368;  (1685), 

,  391- 

Thanes,  i.  151. 
Thiggars,  i.  301. 
Thirleslane,  Scott  of,  i.  453. 


6i6 


INDEX. 


Thirlstane,  Sir  John  Maitland  of.     See 

Maitland. 
Thistle  of  Scotland,  i.  373. 
Thomas,  Valentine,  ii.  435-436,  438. 
Thomson,  Rev.  J.   H.,  cited,  iii.   394- 

396. 

Thomson,  John,  i.  249. 

Thorfin,  Earl  of  Caithness  and  Suther- 
land, i.  53. 

Thorfin  of  Man,  i.  no. 

Thorfinn,  Earl,  i.  90. 

Thread-making,  iv.  417,  419. 

Threave  Castle,  i.  331. 

Throckmorton,  on  the  Amboise  con- 
spiracy, ii.  94 ;  interview  with  Lord 
James,  97-98,  102-103;  interview 
with  Mary  Stuart,  99  ;  sent  to  Mary 
at  Lochleven,  190-192;  jealousy 
of  Cecil,  215;  approves  Norfolk 
marriage  project,  217,  219,  223  ; 
cited,  67  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  i. 
474;  ii.  57,  58,  96,  98,  100,  104, 
114,  115,  137,  139,  141,  564- 

Throckmorton,  Francis,  ii.  295,  303. 

Thurston,  Carmichael  of,  iii.  336. 

Tildesley  (Jacobite),  iv.  240. 

Tillicultrie,  Stewart  of,  iv.  no. 

Tinwald,  Charles   Erskine  of,  iv.  383, 

432- 
Tobacco,  restrictions  on,  ii.  553. 
Tod,  Sir  Thomas,  i.  364-365. 
Toiseachs,  i.   133,  151. 
Toleration — 

Episcopalians,  for.      See  tinder  Epis- 
copalians. 

Kirk's  definition  of,  iv.  90. 
Toleration    Act   of    Queen    .-Vnne,   iv. 

327- 
Tollendal,  Lady,  iv.  449. 
Tonsure,  i.   34,  58,  74. 
Torthorwald,  Mouse  of,  ii.  541. 
Torture- 
Abolition  of  (1709),  iv.  152. 

English  employment  of,  ii.  290. 

Evidence  or  confession,  for,  ii.   259, 
364,  459,  542,  544  ;  iii.   355,    375, 
377-37S.    422  ;    iv.    32  ;    the   boot, 
iii.   312  aiid  note. 
Totemism,  i.  1 2- 1 3,  29,  58,  78. 
Touch,  .Setons  of,  i.  432  ;  ii.  261. 
Towcy,  house  of,  ii.  240. 
Townk-y,  Mr,   iv.    207,   240,   477,   478, 

487,   521. 
Trade — 

Council  of,  created  (1705),  iv.  106. 

East  Inriia  Co.     See  that  title. 

English  Council  of  (1695),  iv.  61,  66. 

Friction    over   forcitjn    floods    at    tlie 
Union,    iv.    139. 

Imports  and  exports,  ii.  554-556. 


New  Mills  Company,  iv.  59. 

Protection  attempted  (1681),  iv.  59. 

Smuggling,  iv.  141. 
Trail  cited,  iii.  219. 
Trant,  Miss  Olive,  iv.  180-181,  234. 
Traquair,    Earl   of   (1637),    against  the 

Bishops,   iii.    33,   42  7iote,  47  ;  made 

Lieutenant  of  the  South,  42  ;  driven 

from  Dalkeith,  54 ;   attack  on,  66  ; 

on   the    General   Assembly,    66,    68- 

70  ;  informs  Ch.irles  of  Covenanters' 

negotiations    with    France,    70-71; 

Scottish   animosity  against,    81,  89; 

opposes    Montrose,     114;    fined    by 

Covenanters,    136;    death    of,    159; 

otherwise    mentioned,    29,    53,    105, 

156. 
Traquair,  L-arl  of  (1650),  iii.  230. 
Traquair,  Earl  of  (1686),  iii.  409. 
Traquair,  Earl  of  (1715),  iv.  182. 
Traquair,  Earl  of  (i 741 -1745),  iv.  436,. 

440,  442,  451,  452. 
Traquair,  Laird  of  (1566),  ii.  163. 
Traquair,  Stewart  of  (1530),  i.  416. 
Traquair,  Stewart  of  {1584),  ii.  297. 
Treason — 

Law  modified,  iv.  151 -152. 

Offences  classed  as,  ii.  337. 

Punishments    for,    i.    207-208,    230  ^ 
for  women,  444. 
Treaties — 

Amiens,  i.  192. 

Berwick  (1560),  ii.  63.  93,  lOO. 

Birgham  (1290),  i.  164-165,  169. 

Cambrai,  League  of,  i.  374. 

Cateau  Cambresis,   Peace  of,   ii.   45, 
46. 

Edmburgh  (1560),   11.    67-69,    72-73, 
94,   98. 

Edward  IIL,  with,  i.  252. 

Falaise  (1175),  i.  113,   129;  abroga- 
tion of,   116,   170. 

Fontainebleau  (1745),  iv.  473. 

Haddintzlon,  ii.  39,  96. 

Henry  VIII.,  with,  i.  46S-472. 

James   VI.    and    Elizabeth,    Lengue 
between  (15S6),   ii.   320-321. 

Newcastle  (1244),  i.  120. 

Northampton  (1328),  i.  233,  241. 

Northumberland,  as  to,  i.  120,  130. 

Protestant     League     with     England 
(1560).  ii.   63. 

Rouen  {1517),  i-  397- 

Roxburgh  (1332),  i.  246,  247. 

Tournay,  iv.  473,  476. 

Truce  of  three  years  with   England 
(1526),  i.  408. 

Utrecht,  iv.  262. 

Vincennes  (1372),  i.  275. 

Wales,  with,  i.  122. 


INDEX. 


617 


Westminster  -  Ardtornish    (1462),     i. 
33^-337.    342;   renewal  of  (1545), 

4«3.   507,   509- 

Trials,  i.  148-150,  152;  touching  the 
Church,  152-153. 

Trotter,  Mr,  iv.  47. 

Trunibcl,  Bp.  of  Glasgow,  i.  355. 

Trumwin,  IJ]).,  i.  36. 

Tudor  policy  towards  Scotland,  i.  242, 
363-364,  395;  ii.  227,  471. 

Tullihardine  (1488),  i.  350. 

Tullibardine,  1st  Earl  of,  ii.  260,  558. 

Tullihardine,  3rd  Earl  of  (ist  Earl  of 
Atholl),  iii.  42  >iote,  58. 

Tullibardine,  5th  Earl  of  (2nd  Earl  of 
Atholl),  iii.  122  ;  iv.  72,  74-75. 

Tullibardine,  Marquess  of  (1715-1746), 
with  Mar  in  the  '15,  iv.  181-182, 
184;  in  hiding,  232;  the  .Spanish 
expedition,  270-273  ;  in  the  '45,  222, 
458,  461,  463,  464,  472,  474,  505- 
506  ;  estimate  of,   222. 

Tullibardine,  Marquess  of(i907),  cited, 
iv.  17  note. 

Tullibardine,  Murray  of  (1332),  i.  244 
269,  502. 

Tulliliardine,  James  Murray  of  (1567), 
ii.  139,  181,"  187,  192. 

Tunstal,  Brian,  i.  379. 

Turgot,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews,  i.  lOO ; 
cited,  95-96,    126. 

"Turn  again,"  i.  410,  444. 

Turnbull,  i.  416. 

Turner,  Rev.  ,  iv.  314. 

Turner.  Sir  James,  with  Leven,  iii. 
113;  at  Dunavertie,  183  -  1S4  ; 
quarters  troops  on  the  godly,  190 ; 
succeeds  Holbourne,  z^i^note ;  forces 
with,  256;  helps  Middleton  to  escape, 
258  ;  charges  against,  306  ;  captured 
by  rebels,  307-308  ;  relieved,  309  ; 
cashiered,  315  ;  characteristics  of, 
113,  305;  cited,  114,  137,  151,  158, 
175,  184  and  note,  186,  191,  252, 
266,  274  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  192, 
253..  312,  376. 

Turriil,  Trot  of,  iii.  58. 

Tushielaw,  Scott  of,  i.  415. 

Tweeddale,  Earl  of,  opposition  of,  to 
Lauderdale,  iii.  326 ;  East  India  Com- 
pany, iv.  61-63,  72,  73  ;  Royal  Com- 
missioner, 97-98,  100  ;  resigns,  lOl  ; 
estimate  of,  87,  97  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, iii.  299,  301,  313,  317-318, 
323  ;  iv.   82. 

Tweeddale,  4th  Marquess  of,  iv.  460, 
472. 

Tweedmouth  Castle,  i.  118. 

Twenge,  Sir  Marniaduke,  i.  183,  224. 

Tylney  cited,  i.  484. 


Tyncmouth,  Lord,  iv.  226. 

Tyrrell,  William,  ii.  3. 

Tytler,  Eraser,  cited,  i.  130,  199, 
238,  241,  254,  262,  269,  272.  289, 
298,  302,  317,  327,  329,  341-342, 
352,  356,  35«.  362,  385,  387,  388, 
410,  457,  507  ;  ii.  7,  48-51,  73,  97, 
102,  143,  193,  297,  320,  411,  428, 
436,  467.   571. 

Umfraville  (1410),  i.  290. 
Umfraville,  d'  (1174),  i.  1 12. 
Umfraville,    Gilbert    de    (1296).       See 

Angus,  Earl  of. 
Unemployment,  complaints  as  to  (1610), 

ii.  505. 
Unfree,  the,  i.  83-84. 
Union  with  F^ngland  (1707) — 

Accomplishment  of,  iv.  134. 

Alternative  to,  iv.  109-iia 

Apprehensions    regarding,     iv.     116, 

Commission  for  (1706) — 

Meetings  of,  iv.  112. 

Nomination  of,  iv.  no. 

Personnel  of,  iv.  1 1  o-  il  3. 
Conditions  of,  iv.  in,  112. 
Dislike  of,  general,  iv.  162-163. 
Extent  of  the  Treaty,  iv.  117. 
Financial    arrangements    under,    iv. 

113-115- 
Heraldic    bearings,    &c.,    under,    iv. 

116. 
Kirk  attitude  towards,  iv.  117,  123. 
Mar's  motion  for  (1705),  iv.  107. 
Nature  of,  iv.  no. 
Parliamentary  reception  of  the  Treaty 

in  Scotland,  iv.  117  et  siq. 
Parliamentary  representation  of  Scot- 
land under,  iv.  1 16. 
Popular    altitude    towards,    iv.    113, 

119,    153,  416. 
Repeal  of,  mooted,  iv.  163. 
Union  with  England,  unsuccessful  efforts 

for- 
Commission  for  (1604),  ii.  500. 
Commission  for  (1702),  iv.  81,  84. 
Cromwellian  attempt  at,  iii.    262-263 

and  note. 
Lethingion's  views,  ii.  64,   no,   135, 

219,  231. 
Scheme  for  (1669),  iii.  320-321. 
Unitarianism,  ii.  15. 
Unitarians,  persecution  of,  ii.  518. 
Universities  {see  also  names  of  places) — 
Bulwarks    against     heresy,     i.     },},'^, 

384- 
Godly  dictators  planted  in,  iii.  44. 
Professors'     salaries,     iv.     404  -  405  ;. 

their  acquirements,  405-406. 


6i8 


INDEX. 


Upsettlington,  submission  to  Edward  I. 

at,  i.  171-172,  198. 
Ure    (preacher)    cited,    iii.    349,    351- 

352- 
Urquhart,  Capt.,  iii.  384,  396. 
Urquhart,  Col.,  iv.  435. 
Urquhart,    Lord     (Alexander    Seton). 

See  Dunfermline. 
Urquhart  family,  i.  308. 
Ury,  Barclay  of,  i.  274. 
Utrecht,  Treaty  of,  iv.  262. 

Vane,  Henry,  iii.  73,  109 ;  cited,  89. 

Vane,  Sir  Ralph,  ii.  9. 

Vassalage  of  Scotland  under  Treaty  of 

F'alaise,  i.  113. 
Vecturiones  (Verturiones),  i.  9,  11,  19. 
Venale,  Robert  de,  i.  248. 
Verneuil,  battle  of,  i.  295. 
Verney,  Sir  Edmund,  iii.  59,  62. 
Vezazi,  Michel,  cited,  iv.  530. 
Vezzosi,  iv.  275,  276. 
Vikings.     See  Northmen. 

Villeins,  i.  84,  161  {see  also  Nativi). 
Vincennes,  Treaty  of,  i.  275. 
Vinogradoff,  W.,  cited,  i.  161. 
Vinstar,  Margaret,  ii.  361. 

Visnet,  i.  150. 
Vitrified  forts,  i.  64. 
Vouriuh,  Clan,  ii.  528,  537. 
Vypont,  Alan  de,  i.  249,  252. 

Wade,  Gen.,  military  roads  of,  iv.  358, 
370  ;  commander-in-chief,  359  ;  in- 
capacity of,  474-476,  484 ;  cited, 
367-369,  472  ;  otherwise  mentioned, 
258,  366,  422,  433. 

Wager  of  battle,  i.  149-150,  161. 

Wake,  Thomas,  Lord  of  Liddesdaie, 
i.    234,   235,   243,   245,   250. 

Wales — 

Arcliery  of,  i.  199. 
Menteithian  treaty  with,  i.  122. 

Waleys,  William,  thief,  i.  179- iSo. 

Walker  (1566)  cited,  ii.  172-173. 

Walker,  .Sir  Edward,  iii.  246. 

Walker,  Patrick,  iii.  350  and  note,  356, 
360;  cited,  357,  363-365,  383,  386, 
,392-394,  418-419;  iv.  124,  131. 

Walkinshaw,  Clementina,  iv.  257,  465, 
491. 

Wallace,  Adam,  ii.   14,  19-20,  45. 

Wallace,  Capt.,  iii.  417. 

Wallace,  Col.  (leader  of  rebels  in 
F'entland  Rising),  iii.  308-309. 

Wallace,  Sir  Malcolm,  i.  1 89. 

Wallace,  William,  name  of,  not  in 
Ragman  Roll,  i.  179;  anecdotes  of, 
180;  rising  of  1297,  181,  184,  495; 
Stirling  Bridge,    182-183  ;   atrocities 


attributed  to,  184;  battle  of  Falkirk, 
186-1S7  ;  journey  to  France,  189, 
194;  Ed  ward's  attitude  towards  (1304), 
193-194;  betrayal  and  death  of, 
194-196,  199. 

Wallace,  Sir  William,  period  of,  i.  97. 

Wallace,  Sir  William  (1689),  iv.  20. 

"  Wallace's  Trench,"  i.  198. 

Wallop,  i.  442,  445. 

Walpole,  Sir  Robert,  accession  of,  to 
power,  iv.  357  ;  on  the  Porteous  riot, 
432,  433  ;  declares  war  against  Spain, 
435 ;  negotiations  with  Jacobites, 
436 ;  attitude  to  Jacobitism,  259, 
423  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  358,  361- 

363- 
Walsh  (Welsh)  (Jacobite),  iv.  452,  458, 

459- 

Walsingham  (Chronicler  of  14th  cent.) 
cited,  i.  191,  199,  240,  268,  277, 
297,  299,  503. 

Walsingham,  Sir  Francis,  plot  of,  with 
Angus  to  seize  James,  ii.  281  ;  inter- 
view with  James,  294 ;  schemes  to 
seize  Edinburgh  Castle,  304,  308 ; 
learns  Mary's  suspicions  of  Archibald 
Douglas,  312;  traps  Mary,  319; 
letter  to  Maitland  after  Mary's 
execution,  334-335  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 26S,  291,  328,  342. 

Walter  of  Coventry  cited,  i.  129. 

Waltheof,  Earl  of  Northumbria,  i.  92, 
102. 

Walton,  Capt.,  iv.  262. 

War  of  Independence — 
Celts  in,  i.  182,  495-496. 
Combatants  in,  i.  139. 
Course  of,  i.  iSo  et  seq. 
Results  of,  i.  158. 

Warbeck,  Perkin,  i.  367  -  369,  387, 
388. 

War-leaders  not  necessarily  clan  chiefs, 
i.  134. 

Ward,  William,  iii.  83. 

Wariilaw,  Henry,  Bp.  of  St  Andrews, 
i.  2S8,  296,  299. 

Wardlaw,   Walter,  Bp.  of  Glasgow,  i. 

275- 
Waienne  (Earl  of  Surrey),  i.  178,  179, 

181-1S4,  239,  250. 
Warliam  cited,  i.  428. 
Warwick  (1461),  i.  336,  337. 
Warwick,  Earl  of  (John  Dudley).      See 

Northumberland,  Duke  of. 
Waristoun,  Alexander  Johnston  of,  iii. 

Waristoun,  Archibald  Johnstone  of, 
censorsliip  of  the  press  by,  iii.  44, 
53 //<?/<•  .•  in  negotiations  with  Charles, 
64 ;      intrigue      with      Savilc,      76 ; 


INDEX. 


619- 


knighted,  100 ;  Vjloodthirstiness  of, 
162;  speech  in  rarliimienl  (1649), 
198 ;  presents  new  declaration  for 
Charles's  signature,  233  ;  blames  Les- 
lie, 237-238  ;  a  Remonstrant,  24S  ; 
encounter  with  Sharp,  277  ;  re- 
appointed Clerk  Register,  277  ;  caji- 
tured  and  sentenced  to  death,  304  ; 
hanged,  32;  cited,  60,  61,  71; 
otherwise  mentioned,  63,  74-  I05> 
106,  197,  202,  218,  265,  269,  272, 
276. 

Watson  (preacher),  ii.  318. 

Watts,  Father,  ii.  280-281,  301. 

Wavarin  cited,  i.  356. 

Webb,  Gen.,  of  Wynendael,  iv.  249, 
250. 

Webster,  Rev.  ,  iv.  2S2. 

Weir  (spy),  iv.  482. 

Weir,  Isabel  (Mrs  John  Brown),  iii.  392- 

393- 

Weir,  Major,  iii.  103,  317. 

Weirdy  (Provend),  ii.  263. 

Wellwood,  Rev.  Sir  Henry  Moncreiff, 
cited,  iv.  292,  298,  299,  310. 

Welsh,  John  (preacher),  (son-in-law  of 
Knox),  seditious  sermon  by,  ii.  420- 
422 ;  estimate  of,  482  ;  mentioned, 
484. 

Welsh,  John  (preacher)  (1679),  price 
set  upon,  iii.  335-336  ;  quarrel  with 
Hamilton,  348-350;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,   322,    323,     329,     331,    336- 

337.  345.  354,  360. 

Welwood,  Prof.,  11.  354,  559,  560. 

Wemyss,  ist  Earl  of,  iii.  27. 

Wemyss,  3rd  Earl  of,  iv.  no,  152. 

Wemyss,  4th  Earl  of,  iv.  357. 

Wemyss,  Lady  Francis,  cited,  iv. 
528. 

Went  worth.     See  Strafford. 

Wesley,  John,  ii.  85,  550 ;  cited,  i. 
488 ;  ii.  432. 

Wessex,  i.  44. 

West,  Dr,  cited,  i.  375-376. 

Westerhali,  Johnstoun  of,  iii.  336. 

Westminster  Commission  on  Mary 
Stuart  (1568),  ii.  182,  183,  210. 

Westmorclnnd  (1569),  ii.  215,  224. 

Wharton  (ICnglish  leader)  (1542),  at  Sol- 
way  Moss,  i.  454-455  ;  ravaging  in  the 
West,  ii.  9,  11-12;  otiierwise  men- 
tioned, i.  451-480;  ii.  6. 

Wharton,  Duke  of,  iv.  423. 

Wharton,  Marquis  of,  iv.  251. 

Whigamores,    iii.    195,    196,    244  ;    iv. 

159- 

Whithurgh,  Anderson  of,  iv.  468. 
White,  >lajor,  iii.  354  ;  cited,  23S. 
Whiteburgh,  Anderson  of,  iv.  420. 


Whitefield,   Rev. 
316-318. 


(revivalist),   iv. 


Whitefoord,  Col.,  at  Prestonpans,  iv. 
469,470;  at  Culloden,  51 1;  map 
by,  cited,  523,  524. 

Whitelaw,  Lord,  iv.  397. 

Whitelaw,  Archibald,  i.  348. 

Whilhern,  i.  24,  25. 

Whitlowe,  ii.  57. 

Whittingham,  Richard  Douglas  of,  con- 
fessions of,  ii.  270 ;  dealings  with 
Archil)a]d  Douglas,  270,  340  ;  cited, 
336.  33^,  340.  342  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 160,  176,  192. 

Whyte,  Rev.  Dr,  cited,  iv.  293. 

Widrington,  Lord,  iv.  195,  205,  210,^ 
226,    239. 

Wighlrnan,  Gen.,  iv.  183,  242,  271, 
272  ;   cited,   217. 

Wilford,  .Sir  John,  ii.   14. 

William  the  Lii)n,  King,  receives  hom- 
age of  Northumbrians,  i.  108  ;  reign 
of,  I II -119;  capture  of,  102,  1 12; 
homage  of,  to  English  king,  94,  170  ; 
ransom  of,  138,  147. 

William  III.,  King  (Prince  of  Orange), 
on  birth  of  Prince  of  Wales,  iii.  412- 
414,  416  ;  proclamation  of  (Oct.  10, 
1688),  414,  416  ;  offer  to  the  Bishops 
rejected,  415-416;  address  to,  419; 
proclaimed  king,  422  ;  declares  for 
toleration,  422  -  423  ;  proposals  re- 
garding Lords  of  the  Articles,  iv.  3- 
4  ;  forliids  lieges  to  leave  Scotland, 

26  ;   annoyed  by  the  Club's  address, 

27  ;  instruction  to  Melville,  29,  31  ; 
policy  as  to  the  clans,  37,  40  ;  Glcn- 
coe  Massacre,  39,  42-44,  46,  47,  54- 
55  ;  persuaded  by  Carstairs,  50  ;  the 
East  India  Company  and  Darien 
Settlement,  61-65,  69,  70,  72,  73, 
75,  76  ;  desire  for  union  of  Scotland 
and  England,  77  ;  hatred  of  France, 
80 ;  death  of,  77  ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned,  335..  3^1.  414,  428. 

William  I.,  King  of  England,  North- 
umbria  ravaged  by,  i.  91  ;  receives 
homage  from  Malcolm,  91-94,  126, 
169. 

William  II.,  King  of  England,  Mal- 
colm's relations  with,  i.  93,  169-170; 
fortifies  Carlisle,  94  ;  restores  Dun- 
can,  55,   98;   quoted,    112. 

William     FitzDuncan,     i.      104,     105, 

115- 
W  illiam  of  Malmesbury  cited,  i.  497. 
William  of  North  Berwick,  i.  282. 
Williams,    Folkestone,    cited,    iv.   422, 

454- 
Williams,  Sir  Wni.  Walkin,  iv.  437. 


620 


INDEX. 


Willock  (preacher),  disputation  of,  with 
Kennedy,  ii.  46  ;  summoned,  47  ;  at 
deathbed  of  Mary  of  Guise,  66  ; 
otherwise  mentioned,  29,  43,   73. 

"Willoui^^hby,  Lord,  assists  in  a  kid- 
napping plot,  ii.  439  ;  relations  with 
Logan  of  Restalrig,  552,  572  ;  other- 
wise mentioned,  445,  446,  472. 

Wills,  Gen.,  iv.  207-210. 

Wilmot,  Lord,  iii.  80,  246. 

Wilson,  Andrew,  iv.  428-429. 

Wilson,  Rev.  Gabriel,  iv.  292,  301. 

Wilson,   Margaret,   iii.   3S4,   386  -  389, 

396. 
Wilson,  Dr  Thomas,  ii.  240. 
Wilton,  Grey  of,  ii.  9-12. 
Wimond,  Brother,  i.  127,  128. 
Winchester  Chronicle  cited,  i.  45-46, 

497- 
Windham  (Wyndham),   Sir  Wm.,   iv. 

181,   195,   199,  236,  259. 
Winram,  Major,  iii.  387-388. 
Winram  (Wynram),  Sub-prior,  i.  449  ; 

ii.  6,  73,  7'6. 
Winram  of  Liberton.     See  Liberton. 
Winton,  Lady,  iii.  204. 
Wintoun,   Earl  of,    iv.    195,  205,  206, 

210,  226,   239. 
Winzet,   Ninian,   disputation   of,    with 

Knox,  ii.  88-91,    107  ;    ejection  of, 

for    nonconformity,     92  ;    otherwise 

mentioned,  122,  239;  iv.  322,  398. 
Wishart    (messenger    of   Brunston),    i. 

475-477,  485-487- 
Wishart,    Bp.   of  Edinburgh,   iii.    300, 

313- 
Wishart,   Bp.  of  Glasgow,    witness  to 

Bruce's  band  with  Count  of  Holland, 
i.  173  ;  makes  terms  at  Irvine,  181  ; 
property  of,  seized,  182;  rebuked  V)y 
the  Pope,  191  -  194  ;  again  rebels, 
192  ;  exiled,  193  ;  sentenced  by  Ed- 
ward, 194  ;  welcomes  Bruce,  204  ; 
in  irons,  206  ;  exchanged  for  Here- 
ford, 225;  perjurifS  of,  191,  194, 
204,  237  ;  otherwise  mentioned,  162, 
164,  172. 

Wishart,  Dr  (Montrose's  chaplain),  im- 
prisonment of,  iii.  135 ;  released, 
156;  leaves  Scotland,  176;  cited, 
81,  107,  III,  114  note,  121  note, 
123,  128,  132  note,  133  note,  137 
note,  140,  141,  151,  158  and  note, 
I59>  176,  211  ;  book  of  Montrose's 
deeds  by,   220. 

Wishart,  George  (martyr),  views  of,  i. 
429;  ii.  5;  career  of,  i.  484-487; 
arrested,  487,  492 ;  warded,  394 ; 
martyred,  488-489;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, 447,  469 ;  ii.   546 ;   iv.   420. 


Witchcraft — 

Beginning  of  executions  for,  i.  344. 
Bothwell's  dealings  in,  ii.   341  ;   his 

acquittal,   374. 
Fear  of,  ii.  549. 
Laws  against,  reform  of,  opposed  by 

Grange,  iv.  314. 
Methods  of,  ii.  351-352,  549-550. 
Shaw,    Christian,    case   of,    iv.    417- 

419. 
Witches — 

Burning   of,    ii.    14,    106,    127,    130, 

292,   295,   352  mtd  note,  431-433. 

549;    iii.    103,   206   note,  279;   iv. 

161,   314. 
Drowning  of,  iii.  388. 
Finding  of,  ii.  43i>  433-434- 
Starving  of,  iii.  383, 
Torturing  of,  iii.  205  ;  iv.  314-315. 
Wodrow,    Rev.    Robert,    death   of,    iv. 
298;     estimate    of,     iii.     311    note; 
iv.   298  ;   cited,   ii.   81,  570 ;   iii.   63, 
100,    285,   287,    289,    294,    295,   299 
note,   300,   302,  305,    313  note,   315, 
317-319,    321,    322,    325,    329,    332, 

334,  335.  340,  344>  347.   34^,  354, 

355  and  tiote,    359,    366,   36S,    370, 

373,  374,    376,    378,    382-388,   390- 

394,  396,    397,    399,   401-403,   405, 

407,  408,   410,    414;   iv.   147,    149, 

154,  155,  157,   161,   162,    185,  243, 

282,  284,    286-291,    295-298,    308- 

310,  360,    362,    382-383,   386-387, 

391,  392,  446- 

Wogan,  Sir  Charles,  in  Forster's  rising, 
iv.  195-196;  escapes,  240;  seeks  a 
bride  for  James,  260-261  ;  starts  to 
secure  her,  262,  266  ;  adventures  on 
the  quest,  273-277;  promotion,  278; 
cited,  iii.  258,  269 ;  otherwise  men- 
tioned, iv.  148,  210,  348. 

Wogan,  Edward,  rescues  Charles  at 
Worcester,  iii.  258;  raid  of  (1653), 
269-270;  mentioned,    189. 

Wogan,  Nicholas,  in  the  '15,  iv.  205  ; 
at  Preston,  209;  fountl  guilty,  240; 
seeking  for  a  mischief,  337  -  339  ; 
mentioned,   196. 

Wogan,  Thomas,  iii.  270. 

Wolff,  Henry,  cited,  iv.  168  note. 

Wolsey,  Cardinal,  ravages  .Scotland,  i. 
401  ;  private  documents  secured  by, 
403  ;  treachery  to  Beaton,  406  ;  on 
Jiiblical   criticism,    428 ;    mentioned, 

373- 
Wood,   The  Rev.  (preacher),  iii. 

208,  228. 
Wood.  Sir  Andrew,  i.  352,  361,  363. 
Wood,  David,  i.  505. 
Wood,  John,  deserts  Protestant  party, 


INDEX. 


621 


ii.    no;    Moray's    agent,    205,    217- 
220  ;  the  Casket  Letters,   564-566. 

Wood,  Margaret,  iii.  22. 

Wooden  Jialls,  i.  68. 

IVorii's/er,  I'he,  iv.   102-103. 

Wormiston,  Spens  of,  ii.  238,  531. 

Wotton,  Sir  Edward,  ii.  313-315. 

Wyckoff,   C.    T.,    cited,    i.    197,    496- 

497- 
Wycliffe,  i.  290. 

Wyndham,  Sir  Wm.     See  Windham. 
Wynne,  Sir  Watkin,  iv.  477,  480. 
Wynram,  Sub-jirior.     See  Winram. 
Wyntoun,  estimate  of,    i.    296 ;    cited, 

270,   271,  287,  293,  297,  298,  503. 

Yair,  Andrew  Ker  of,  ii.  541,  542. 
Yarhouse  broch,  i.  64. 


Yaxley,  ii.  150- 151. 

Yester  (1637),  iii.  27. 

Yle.     See  Isla,  Isles. 

Yolet  (wife  of  Alexander  III.),  i.  125, 

196. 
Yorke,  Col.  Joseph,  cited,  iv.  511,  513, 

516;   sketch   of  Culloden    fight   by, 

524-525. 
Young,  Peter,  ii.  266,  334,  347,  403. 
Young,  Robert,  iii.  53  note. 
"  Young  Juba "    cited,    iv.    528,    530- 

531; 
Yuletide  observance,  ii.  548. 

Zimmer,  Prof.,  cited,  i.  493, 
Zouche,  1st  Lord,  i.  245. 
Zouche,  nth  Lord,  ii.  383,  388. 
Zuccato  cited,  i.  457. 


ERRATUM— VOL.    III. 

129,  /.  13.  "Sibbald  and  Rollock  .  .  .  were  treacherous  and  liad 
deserted."  This  is  an  error  as  to  Rollock,  caused  by  a  misreading  of 
Wishart,  p.  77.  Rollock  was  thoroughly  loyal,  and  (cf.  infra,  p.  161) 
sealed  his  faith  with  his  blood  on  the  scaffold. 


PRINTED   BY  WILLIAM    BLACKWOOD   AND   SONS. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  k  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  belo«. 

\ 


WW 


0  31981 


t»  »• 


315 


3  1158  00869  8358 


yKIVERSJ!  > 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  398  119    8 


CALIf^ 


ill 


